Search

This study assesses whether the Democratic Party holds issue ownership over science in the United States. We analyze data from a national survey that asked 1041 adults questions specifically designed to measure perceptions of science ownership. While the results suggest that the Democratic Party does hold a significant advantage in ownership of science in an abstract sense, perceptions of ownership of specific types of science vary across the two parties. Those who identify as Independents drive much of the aggregate perceptions of ownership of science, whereas partisans' perceptions of issue ownership of science are mostly driven by in-party favoritism. Post hoc analyses suggest that news media use contributes to perceptions of science ownership and reinforces affinity-party preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We assessed the effectiveness of an integrated engineering public-speaking class relative to a traditionally taught public-speaking class. The integrated class was designed to meet the growing science, technology, engineering, and mathematics communication needs and the fundamental Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology and the National Communication Association student outcomes related to public speaking. Working within the Communication in the Disciplines theoretical framework, this study employed a quasi-experiment with both a test (engineering specific communication class) and control (traditional communication class) group; finding a significant increase with respect to attitude toward communication for students before and after the engineering specific class compared with the traditional class. Along with attitude toward communication, efficacy toward communication and being enrolled in the engineering specific class related positively to a sense of engineering identity for students at the end of class. For students enrolled in the engineering specific class, their sense of engineering identity was mediated through an improved attitude toward communication.

This study enhances the explanatory power of the stigma management communication theory [SMCT] while providing practical communication techniques for people who may want to respond to racist/colorist comments. Using the typology of SMCT, we propose a predictive model that includes two new variables– perceived agency and perceived efficacy to verbally respond to racist/colorist comments. Results from a survey (N = 655) and in-depth interviews (N = 43) of predominantly US adults show that perceived agency and perceived efficacy impact how one responds to racist/colorist comments. The study also found that social media can nurture the perceived sense of agency and learning the history of racism/colorism can nurture the perceived sense of efficacy. The study concludes by discussing how the explanatory power of SMCT can be further improved by refining the constructs of agency and efficacy, and providing practical steps to equip those who want to verbally respond to racist/colorist comments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recently, many scientists and science advocates have taken the responsibility to mobilize for the sake of science. With fake news or "alternative facts" on the rise, many scientists and science supporters are determined to protect the credibility of science and promote evidence-based policy-making. At the core of these mobilization efforts is teaching: making science accessible to the public and policy makers in ways that mitigate false information. This paper argues that communication scholars can contribute to this important conversation through exploring instructional aspects of science activism. The paper proposes potential areas of investigation focused on intersections among science, mobilization, teaching, and learning. To do so, such research will involve scientists and nonscientists, as well as lifelong and first-time activists, in negotiating instructional practices to mobilize for science.

This study examined the effects of media narratives about concussions on parent's intentions to inform their children about concussions. A randomized experiment of 600 parents whose children play football in middle school or high school were presented with one of the five narrative conditions or the control condition (where parents read a brochure). Results indicate that parents who read the narrative shared from the perspective of a high school football player, a parent, a coach, and a Center for Disease Control and Prevention researcher induced negative emotions, and those exposed to the narratives from the perspective of a high school football player and a parent also experienced a sense of identification and thereby reduced counterargument. Negative emotions and a reduced counterargument influenced intentions of these parents to inform their children of the dangers and risks of playing football and prompted them to read information on sports-related concussions. The results of this study have implications for communities and organizations seeking to motivate parents to engage in informative conversations with their children about the dangers and risks associated with playing football including concussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the United States, an ideological and partisan divide in beliefs about science is well documented. In this study, we further examine this partisan divide and how this relationship is conditioned on levels of political interest and news consumption. Analyzing data from three nationally representative U.S. surveys, we replicate past research and find ideological divisions in evaluations of, and beliefs about, science and scientists. We then show that greater interest in politics and news consumption is more strongly related to positive beliefs about science and scientists among liberals than among moderates and conservatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the scholarship of abstract/concrete cognition, mental schema, and the integrated model of behavior change, this study found that using concrete over abstract language increased support for specific genetically modified (GM) applications and GM in general, and improved intentions to purchase products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). An online survey with an embedded 3 × 2 experiment was conducted using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,470). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions that varied in abstract/concrete conceptualization of GMOs and were prompted to assess GM risk and benefit perceptions with respect to human health and the environment. Regardless of whether they assessed risks or benefits, participants who assessed GMOs through concrete terms compared to abstract terms showed an increase in positive emotions, which in turn increased their support for specific GM applications and GM in general, and their intentions to buy products with GMOs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Based on the scholarship of abstract/concrete cognition, mental schema, and the integrated model of behavior change, this study found that using concrete over abstract language increased support for specific genetically modified (GM) applications and GM in general, and improved intentions to purchase products containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs). An online survey with an embedded 3 × 2 experiment was conducted using a national sample of U.S. adults (N = 1,470). Participants were randomly assigned to conditions that varied in abstract/concrete conceptualization of GMOs and were prompted to assess GM risk and benefit perceptions with respect to human health and the environment. Regardless of whether they assessed risks or benefits, participants who assessed GMOs through concrete terms compared to abstract terms showed an increase in positive emotions, which in turn increased their support for specific GM applications and GM in general, and their intentions to buy products with GMOs., (© 2020 Society for Risk Analysis.)