21 pages., via online journal., Scholars are divided over whether communicating to the public the existence
of scientific consensus on an issue influences public acceptance of the
conclusions represented by that consensus. Here, we examine the
influence of four messages on perception and acceptance of the scientific
consensus on the safety of genetically modified organisms (GMOs): two
messages supporting the idea that there is a consensus that GMOs are safe
for human consumption and two questioning that such a consensus exists.
We found that although participants concluded that the pro-consensus
messages made stronger arguments and were likely to be more
representative of the scientific community’s attitudes, those messages did
not abate participants’ concern about GMOs. In fact, people’s premanipulation attitudes toward GMOs were the strongest predictor of of our outcome variables (i.e. perceived argument strength, post-message GMO
concern, perception of what percent of scientists agree). Thus, the results
of this study do not support the hypothesis that consensus messaging
changes the public’s hearts and minds, and provide more support, instead,
for the strong role of motivated reasoning.
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.
12 pages., via online journal, We examined how information from multiple communication channels can inform social norms about local food purchasing. The concept of social exposure was used as a guide. Social exposure articulates how information in social, symbolic, and physical environments contributes to normative perceptions. Data was collected from a sample in Wisconsin. Results indicated that information from communication channels representing symbolic, social, and physical environments all contributed to normative perceptions. We also found that for individuals who frequent farmers’ markets, information from some communication channels was relatively less strongly associated with injunctive norms. It may be that when first-hand, experiential information is available to inform norms, individuals rely less on information available through other communication channels. Future work might further explore how farmers’ markets foster information sharing in communities, as such information may contribute to normative perceptions.