Public Understanding of Science最新文献

Political actors pay attention to newspapers because they stimulate them to address a topic, reflect public opinion, provide feedback to their decisions, and help them to generate effective messages. Previous surveys showed that this is true for scientific issues. It follows that the newspaper coverage of scientific issues should appear as politically oriented, as observed regarding climate change. Here, we tested this prediction regarding educational neuroscience. This scientific issue is interesting because it implies no major economic interest and because the relevance of neuroscience regarding teaching in the classroom is still highly controversial. As hypothesized, we observed that the French press appeared strongly polarized: the right-leaning press was mostly favorable to educational neuroscience, whereas critical opinions were mainly found in the social-democrat press. Although the relevance of neuroscience toward teaching was rarely discussed in scientific arguments, political actors often invoked educational neuroscience in the press to legitimate their decision.

The objective of this research was to explore how attitudes to science and scientists may be related to anti-vax positions and whether the psychological trait known as Need for Closure may influence the relationship between any or all of these attitudes. A questionnaire was administered to a sample of 1128 young people aged 18-25 living in Italy during the COVID-19 health crisis. Based on the results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, which allowed the extraction of a three-factor solution (scepticism about science, unrealistic expectations about science and anti-vax postures), we tested our hypotheses by means of a structural equation model. We found that anti-vax positions are strongly correlated with sceptical views of science, while unrealistic expectations about science affect attitudes to vaccination only indirectly. Either way, Need for Closure emerged as a key variable in our model, as it significantly moderates the effect of both factors on anti-vax positions.

The COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is marked by divisions in perceptions of disease severity as well as misperceptions about the virus and vaccine that vary along ideological and political party lines. Perceptual differences may be due to differences in the information about the virus that individuals are exposed to within their own identity-affirming ideological news bubbles. This content analysis of six different national network transcripts highlights differences in coverage of severity, and the prevalence of misinformation and its correction that are consistent with previously established preferred news channels of conservatives/Republicans and liberals/Democrats and their perceptions and misperceptions about the pandemic. Results contribute to the growing body of country-specific COVID-19 media studies that allow for comparisons across nations with different cultures and media systems, as these factors play a pivotal role in national responses and experiences.

Despite widespread trust in scientists, efforts to curtail their influence suggest some Americans distrust scientists and may even perceive them to be a social threat. Using panel survey data, we examine who holds this viewpoint and potential implications of threat perceptions. Results suggest Republicans and Evangelical identifying individuals perceived more social threat from scientists. News media uses were associated with threat perceptions in divergent ways. Threat perceptions were strongly associated with inaccurate science beliefs, support for excluding scientists from policy-making, and retributive actions toward scientists. Findings highlight the importance of social identity considerations amid concerns about partisan social sorting and politicization of science.

Lay readers' trust in scientific texts can be shaped by perceived text easiness and scientificness. The two effects seem vital in a time of rapid science information sharing, yet have so far only been examined separately. A preregistered online study was conducted to assess them jointly, to probe for author and text trustworthiness overlap, and to investigate interindividual influences on the effects. N = 1467 lay readers read four short research summaries, with easiness and scientificness (high vs low) being experimentally varied. A more scientific writing style led to higher perceived author and text trustworthiness. Higher personal justification belief, lower justification by multiple-sources belief, and lower need for cognitive closure attenuated the influence of scientificness on trustworthiness. However, text easiness showed no influence on trustworthiness and no interaction with text scientificness. Implications for future studies and suggestions for enhancing the perceived trustworthiness of research summaries are discussed.

Several studies have shown that female experts are seldom quoted within news media coverage about health and science issues. Yet, during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequent race for a vaccine, female health and science workers (broadly defined) were at the forefront of the discovery, testing, and implementation of several vaccinations. This study examines the extent to which female experts were represented in news coverage about the vaccine over a 2-year period in The New York Times (n = 1978). Of the expert sources quoted (3,555), the majority were male (n = 2417) as compared to female (n = 1138). This pattern held when looking specifically at researchers and medical experts. When both a male and female source were quoted, however, females were quoted first, suggesting that females were given the role of being a primary rather than supporting expert. Implications and future directions are discussed.

Despite evidence supporting numerous scientific issues (e.g. climate change, vaccinations) many people still doubt the legitimacy of science. Moreover, individuals may be prone to scepticism about scientific findings that misalign with their ideological beliefs and identities. This research investigated whether trust in science (as well as government and media) and COVID-19 vaccination intentions varied as a function of (non)religious group identity, religiosity, religion-science compatibility beliefs, and/or political orientation in two online studies (N = 565) with university students and a Canadian community sample between January and June 2021. In both studies, vaccination intentions and trust in science varied as a function of (non)religious group identity and beliefs. Vaccine hesitancy was further linked to religiosity through a lack of trust in science. Given the ideological divides that the pandemic has exacerbated, this research has implications for informing public health strategies for relaying scientific findings to the public and encouraging vaccine uptake in culturally appropriate ways.