Cited by 17Climate Change Communication and PerceptionRisk Perception and ManagementCommunication and COVID-19 Impact

Media evolution and public understanding of climate science

Williams, Ann E.·2011·Politics and the Life Sciences

Abstract

This paper employs public opinion data from a nationally representative probability sample to examine how information encounters and exposure to different media sources relate to individuals' beliefs about global warming. The analyses indicate that media source exposure (i.e., exposure to news and information about science presented through different media outlets), intentional information exposure (i.e., deliberate exposure to global warming news coverage), and inadvertent information exposure (i.e., unplanned exposure to news and information about science that is encountered online while searching for other forms of information) relate to beliefs about global warming, in significant and meaningful ways. Namely, the findings show that both intentional information exposure and inadvertent online information exposure associate with disbelief in human-made causes, catalysts, and consequences of global warming. Theoretical and social implications of the findings are discussed and contextualized in light of the rapidly evolving media environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2990/30_2_20

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Exposure to different kinds of information on media, politicization of climate change, and exposure to fake information on social media are potential reasons that can contribute to polarization of beliefs about the reality of climate change.

    “Various factors like exposure to different kind of information on the media (Iyengar and Massey, 2019;Williams, 2016), politicization of climate change (McCright and Dunlap, 2011), and exposure to fake information on social media platforms are potential reasons that can contribute to polarization of beliefs about the reality of climate change.”

    From Credibility of climate change denial in social media (2019) · cites this paper as Williams, 2016

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Williams, A. E.
Affiliations
Georgia State University (US)
Corresponding author
Williams, Ann E.
Venue
Politics and the Life Sciences
Published
2011
Volume
30
Issue
2
Pages
20-30
ISSN
  • 0730-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-5457
OpenAlex
W2158057587
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3
FWCI
4.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Politics and the Life Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • BioOne Complete (BioOne) (submittedVersion)
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 › Communication and COVID-19 Impact
Keywords
climate change beliefs, climate change skepticism, media exposure, online information seeking, news media, science communication, public understanding of climate science, media evolution
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Female, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Male, Mass Media, Politics, Public Opinion, Religion and Science, Sex Factors, United States, Global Health, Meteorology, Global Warming

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