The DOI matches its Crossref record; 14 of the 14 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Communicating science in politicized environments
Open accessAbstract
Many members of the scientific community attempt to convey information to policymakers and the public. Much of this information is ignored or misinterpreted. This article describes why these outcomes occur and how science communicators can achieve better outcomes. The article focuses on two challenges associated with communicating scientific information to such audiences. One challenge is that people have less capacity to pay attention to scientific presentations than many communicators anticipate. A second challenge is that people in politicized environments often make different choices about whom to believe than do people in other settings. Together, these challenges cause policymakers and the public to be less responsive to scientific information than many communicators desire. Research on attention and source credibility can help science communicators better adapt to these challenges. Attention research clarifies when, and to what type of stimuli, people do (and do not) pay attention. Source credibility research clarifies the conditions under which an audience will believe scientists’ descriptions of phenomena rather than the descriptions of less-valid sources. Such research can help communicators stay true to their science while making their findings more memorable and more believable to more audiences.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.
Miller, G. A. (1956) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0043158 · Cited by 17,812
Levels of processing: A framework for memory research
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x · Cited by 9,566
A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.82.6.407 · Cited by 8,141
The role of transportation in the persuasiveness of public narratives.
Green, M. C., & Brock, T. C. (2000) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.701 · Cited by 4,861
Working Memory: Theories, Models, and Controversies
Baddeley, A. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100422 · Cited by 4,271
Harnad, S. (1990) · Physica D: Nonlinear Phenomena · doi:10.1016/0167-2789(90)90087-6 · Cited by 4,235
The attention system of the human brain: 20 years after
Petersen, S. E., & Posner, M. I. (2012) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-062111-150525 · Cited by 3,439
Emotion drives attention: Detecting the snake in the grass.
Öhman, A., Flykt, A., & Esteves, F. (2001) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/0096-3445.130.3.466 · Cited by 2,542
The Persuasiveness of Source Credibility: A Critical Review of Five Decades' Evidence
Pornpitakpan, C. (2004) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x · Cited by 2,205 · cited 4×
“A large body of research examines how people choose what and whom to believe in such situations, situations where speakers are competing to influence public perceptions (53, 54).”
BackgroundInfluentialChurchland, P. S., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1992) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/2010.001.0001 · Cited by 1,757
Cited by
Systematic Literature Review on the Spread of Health-related Misinformation on Social Media
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552 · Cited by 1,806
“Many studies have thus analysed the credibility of user-generated contents and the cognitive process involved in the decision to spread online information on social and political events (Abbasi and Liu, 2013; Castillo et al., 2011; Lupia, 2013; Swire et al., 2017) .”
The evidence for motivated reasoning in climate change preference formation
Druckman, J. N., & McGrath, M. C. (2019) · Nature Climate Change · doi:10.1038/s41558-018-0360-1 · Cited by 733
Motivated Rejection of Science
Lewandowsky, S., & Oberauer, K. (2016) · Current Directions in Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0963721416654436 · Cited by 389
The sciences of science communication
Fischhoff, B. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110 · Cited by 362
Kreps, S. E., & Kriner, D. L. (2020) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abd4563 · Cited by 328
“On the basis of these modal themes in communication, we hypothesize that criticism of COVID-19 science and support for its use in guiding policymaking will have differential impacts depending on the public’s priors about the cue giver (13, 14).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Lupia, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-08-12
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- supplement_3
- Pages
- 14048-14054
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1976469665
- Cited by
- 192
- References
- 14
- FWCI
- 31.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Communicating science in politicized environments. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1212726110
- The paper
- Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212726110
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.