Testing Public (Un)Certainty of Science: Media Representations of Global Warming
Abstract
This exploratory study examines whether readers’assessments of the certainty of scientific findings depend on characteristics of news stories. An experimental design tested whether adding controversy and/or context to a news story about global warming influenced readers’ perceptions of its certainty. Respondents (N = 209) were randomly assigned to read one treatment and answer a questionnaire. Overall, there was a significant difference in readers’assessment of the certainty of global warming across treatments (F = 12.59, p = .00). The context treatment produced the highest level of certainty about global warming and differed significantly from the control treatment (with neither context nor controversy) and from the controversy treatment. Control and controversy treatments resulted in the lowest levels of certainty. There was an interaction effect between treatment and environmental ideology upon certainty (F = 1.64, p = .03) and a correlation between environmental ideology and prior certainty about global warming (r = .35, p = .01), suggesting that those with proenvironmental ideology were less swayed by the treatments.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A news story about global warming resulted in higher perceptions of scientists' level of certainty when it stated the limitations of the study.
“A news story about global warming resulted in higher perceptions of scientists' level of certainty when it stated the limitations of the study (Corbett and Durfee, 2004).”
From A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication (2020) · cites this paper as Corbett and Durfee, 2004
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: Dimensions, determinants and change over time
Whitmarsh, L. (2011) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.016 · Cited by 890 · see citing works
Climate of scepticism: US newspaper coverage of the science of climate change
Antilla, L. (2005) · Global Environmental Change · doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2005.08.003 · Cited by 511 · see citing works
Whitmarsh, L. (2009) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662506073088 · Cited by 448 · see citing works
Communicating uncertainty about facts, numbers and science
van der Bles, A. M., van der Linden, S., Freeman, A. L. J., Mitchell, J., Galvao, A. B., Zaval, L., & Spiegelhalter, D. J. (2019) · Royal Society Open Science · doi:10.1098/rsos.181870 · Cited by 456 · see citing works
"Global warming" or "climate change"?: Whether the planet is warming depends on question wording
Schuldt, J. P., Konrath, S. H., & Schwarz, N. (2011) · Public Opinion Quarterly · doi:10.1093/poq/nfq073 · Cited by 409 · see citing works
Jensen, J. D. (2008) · Human Communication Research · doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.2008.00324.x · Cited by 298 · see citing works
A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2020) · Public Understanding of Science · doi:10.1177/0963662520942122 · Cited by 291 · see citing works
The Effects of Uncertainty Frames in Three Science Communication Topics
Gustafson, A., & Rice, R. E. (2019) · Science Communication · doi:10.1177/1075547019870811 · Cited by 151 · see citing works
The Effect of Information Provision on Public Consensus about Climate Change
Deryugina, T., & Shurchkov, O. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151469 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Motivated recall in the service of the economic system: The case of anthropogenic climate change.
Hennes, E. P., Ruisch, B. C., Feygina, I., Monteiro, C. A., & Jost, J. T. (2016) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000148 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Perceptions of scientific dissent undermine public support for environmental policy
Aklin, M., & Urpelainen, J. (2014) · Environmental Science & Policy · doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2013.10.006 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
Including “Evidentiary Balance” in News Media Coverage of Vaccine Risk
Clarke, C. E., Dixon, G. N., Holton, A., & McKeever, B. W. (2015) · Health Communication · doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.867006 · Cited by 63 · see citing works
How Grammatical Choice Shapes Media Representations of Climate (Un)certainty
Bailey, A., Giangola, L., & Boykoff, M. T. (2014) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.906481 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Rice, R. E., Gustafson, A., & Hoffman, Z. (2018) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2018.1430046 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
- Authors
- Corbett, J. B., & Durfee, J. L.
- Affiliations
- University of Utah (US)
- Venue
- Science Communication
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 129-151
- ISSN
- 0164-0259 (ISSN-L)
- 1075-5470
- 1552-8545
- OpenAlex
- W2168050945
- Cited by
- 432
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 27 · 2015: 34 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 30 · 2012: 27
- FWCI
- 24.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science Communication (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Climate Change Communication and Perception
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
- Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
- Keywords
- global warming, news framing, environmental ideology, media influence on public opinion
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
