The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Effects of Value Predispositions, Mass Media Use, and Knowledge on Public Attitudes Toward Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Open accessAbstract
Research on public attitudes toward controversial science seem to be divided between a camp that relies on a ‘scientific literacy model’, which states that increase in public knowledge of science is related to increase in public support, and a camp contending that the ‘miserly’ public will rely on heuristic cues such as value predispositions to form opinions about scientific controversies. In the present study, we argue along the lines of the heuristic–systematic model of information processing that the influences of value predispositions and knowledge on attitude formation can be complementary processes that will supplement cues provided by the media. Using data from a national three-wave panel survey conducted between 2002 and 2005, we examine the influence of value predispositions, news media use, and scientific knowledge on attitudes toward a controversial scientific issue: human embryonic stem cell research in the USA. Public attitudes toward stem cell research were shaped by value predispositions and to a lesser extent, cues from the news media. Scientific knowledge played a minor role in influencing attitude toward stem cell research. Religiosity, ideology, and deference to scientific authority moderated the effect that scientific knowledge had on support for stem cell research, with knowledge having a weaker effect on attitudes for the conservatives, and those individuals high on religious beliefs and low on deference to scientific authority.
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
Cited by
Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news
Scheufele, D. A., & Krause, N. M. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805871115 · Cited by 878
Self-citationScience communication as political communication
Scheufele, D. A. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111 · Cited by 313
Self-citationCommunicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231
Self-citationAnderson, A. A., Scheufele, D. A., Brossard, D., & Corley, E. A. (2012) · International Journal of Public Opinion Research · doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr032 · Cited by 122
Self-citationI’ll see it when i believe it: motivated numeracy in perceptions of climate change risk
Nurse, M. S., & Grant, W. J. (2020) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2019.1618364 · Cited by 83
Binder, A. R., Hillback, E. D., & Brossard, D. (2016) · Risk Analysis · doi:10.1111/risa.12462 · Cited by 38
Self-citationGoldfarb, J. L., & Kriner, D. L. (2017) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547016688325 · Cited by 20
Di, C., & Fang, W. (2019) · Information Development · doi:10.1177/0266666918782361 · Cited by 8
Metadata
- Authors
- Ho, S. S., Brossard, D., & Scheufele, D. A.
- Venue
- International Journal of Public Opinion Research
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2008-04-30
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-192
- ISSN
- 0954-2892 (ISSN-L)
- 1471-6909
- OpenAlex
- W2043725843
- Cited by
- 261
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 47.18
- 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
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.