18 pages., via online journal, The aim of this paper is to investigate the perceptions of small-scale farmers in Brazil towards genetically modified (GM) crops based on a sample of 15 focus groups involving 111 individuals. The analysis of the corpus shows heterogeneous perceptions regarding these crops, shaped by diverse factors, including economic prospects and concerns with the impact on health and the environment. There are many misgivings about these effects among the farmers, who are keen to receive unbiased information on the topic. These uncertainties affect them more as consumers, as most would prefer eating GM-free food, than as producers, as they consider other aspects, especially economic feasibility, when deciding what to grow. Although most farmers believe they should have a voice in decision-making on agricultural issues, few have made concerted efforts to be heard.
24 pages., via online journal., The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment (N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.
28 pages, via online journal, While uncertainty is central to science, many fear negative effects of communicating scientific uncertainties to the public, though research results about such effects are inconsistent. Therefore, we test the effects of four distinct uncertainty frame types (deficient, technical, scientific, consensus) on three outcomes (belief, credibility, behavioral intentions) across three science issues (climate change, GMO food labeling, machinery hazards) with an experiment using a national sample (N = 2,247) approximating U.S. census levels of age, education, and gender. We find portraying scientific findings using uncertainty frames usually does not have significant effects, with an occasional exception being small negative effects of consensus uncertainty.
