National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 5 Building the Knowledge Base for Effective Science Communication
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

References

Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D., and Brunton-Smith, I. (2008). Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science, 17(1), 35-54.

Am, H. (2013). Don’t make nanotechnology sexy, ensure its benefits, and be neutral: Studying the logic of new intermediary institutions in ambiguous governance contexts. Science and Public Policy, 40(4), 466-478.

Anderson, A.A., Kim, J., Scheufele, D.A., Brossard, D., and Xenos, M.A. (2013). What’s in a name? How we define nanotech shapes public reactions. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15, 1421.

Anderson, A.A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., Xenos, M.A., and Ladwig, P. (2014). The “nasty effect”: Online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19(3), 373-387.

Aral, S., Muchnik, L., and Sundararajan, A. (2009). Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(51), 21544-21549.

Arnold, A., Böhm, G., Corner, A., Mays, C., Pidgeon, N., Poortinga, W., Poumadère, M., Scheer, D., Sonnberger, M., Steentjes, K., and Tvinnereim, E. (2016). European Perceptions of Climate Change. Socio-Political Profiles to Inform a Crossnational Survey in France, Germany, Norway, and the UK. Oxford, UK: Climate Outreach.

Asensio, O.I., and Delmas, M.A. (2015). Nonprice incentives and energy conservation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112(6), E510-E515.

Baram-Tsabari, A., and Segev, E. (2009). Exploring new web-based tools to identify public interest in science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 130-143.

Bednarek, A.T., Shouse, B., Hudson, C.G., and Goldburg, R. (2016). Science-policy intermediary from a practitioner’s perspective: The Lenfest Ocean Program experience. Science and Public Policy, 43, 1-10.

Bekker, H.L., Winterbottom, A.E., Butow, P., Dillard, A.J., Feldman-Stewart, D., Fowler, F.J., M.L. Jibaja-Weiss, V.A. Shaffer, and Volk, R.J. (2013). Do personal stories make patient decision aids more effective? A critical review of theory and evidence. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 13(Suppl. 2), S9.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Bennett, W.L. (2016). The Politics of Illusion (10th Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Berkman, M., and E. Plutzer. (2010). Evolution, Creationism and the Battle to Control America’s Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bernauer, T., and McGrath, L.F. (2016). Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy. Nature Climate Change. Available: http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2948.html [November 30, 2016].

Besley, J.C. (2010). Public engagement and the impact of fairness perceptions on decision favorability and acceptance. Science Communication, 32(2), 256-280.

Besley, J.C., and McComas, K.A. (2015). Something old and something new: Comparing views about nanotechnology and nuclear energy. Journal of Risk Research, 18(2), 215-231.

Besley, J.C., Dudo, A.D., Yuan, S., and Ghannam, N.A. (2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356-381.

Bhattacharjee, Y. (2010). NSF board draws flak for dropping evolution from indicators. Science, 328(5975), 150-151.

Bidwell, D., Dietz, T., and Scavia, D. (2013). Fostering knowledge networks for climate adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 3, 610-611.

Binder, A.R. (2010). Routes to attention or shortcuts to apathy? Exploring domain-specific communication pathways and their implications for public perceptions of controversial science. Science Communication, 32(3), 383-411.

Binder, A.R., Scheufele, D.A., Brossard, D., and Gunther, A.C. (2011). Interpersonal amplification of risk? Citizen discussions and their impact on perceptions of risks and benefits of a biological research facility. Risk Analysis, 31(2), 324-334.

Binder, A.R., Scheufele, D.A., and Brossard, D. (2012). Misguided science policy? The pitfalls of using public meetings as surrogate gauges of public opinion. The Scientist, April 10. Available: http://the-scientist.com/2012/04/10/opinion-misguided-science-policy [November 30, 2016].

Binder, A.R., Hillback, E.D., and Brossard, D. (2016). Conflict or caveats? How media portrayals of scientific uncertainty influence perceptions of new technologies. Risk Analysis, 36(4), 831-846.

Blank, J.M., and Shaw, D. (2015). Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 18-35.

Bleich, S., Blendon, R., and Adams, A. (2007). Trust in scientific experts on obesity: Implications for awareness and behavior change. Obesity, 15(8), 2145-2156.

Bliuc, A.M., McGarty, C., Thomas, E.F., Lala, G., Berndsen, M., and Misajon, R. (2015). Public division about climate change rooted in conflicting socio-political identities. Nature Climate Change, 5(3), 226-229.

Boczkowski, P.J., and Mitchelstein, E. (2013). The News Gap: When the Information Preferences of the Media and the Public Diverge. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Bolsen, T., and Druckman, J.N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745-769.

Bostrom, A. (2008). Lead is like mercury: Risk comparisons, analogies and mental models. Journal of Risk Research, 11(1-2), 99-117.

Bostrom, A., Böhm, G., and O’Connor, R.E. (2013). Targeting and tailoring climate change communications. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 4(5), 447-455.

Boutron, I., Altman, D.G., Hopewell, S., Vera-Badillo, F., Tannock, I., and Ravaud, P. (2014). Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: The SPIIN randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 32(36), 4120-4126.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Braman, D., Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H.C., Tarantola, T., and Silva, C.L. (2012). Geoengineering and the science communication environment: A cross-cultural experiment. Available: http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications/199 [November 30, 2016].

Brewer, P.R., and Ley, B.L. (2013). Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication, 35(1), 115-137.

Brewer, N.T., Chapman, G.B., Gibbons, F.X., Gerrard, M., McCaul, K.D., and Weinstein, N.D. (2007). Meta-analysis of the relationship between risk perception and health behavior: The example of vaccination. Health Psychology, 26(2), 136.

Brewer, N.T., Hall, M.G., Noar, S.M., Parada, H., Stein-Seroussi, A., Bach, L. E., Hanley, S., and Ribisl, K.M. (2016). Effect of pictorial cigarette pack warnings on changes in smoking behavior: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 176(7), 905-912.

Brossard, D. (2012). A brave new world: Challenges and opportunities for communicating about biotechnology in new information environments. In M.-D. Weitze, A. Puehler, W.M. Heckl, B. Müller-Röber, O. Renn, P. Weingart, and G. Wess (Eds.), Biotechnologie-Kommunikation: Kontroversen, Analysen, Aktivitäten (pp. 427-445). Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.

Brossard, D. (2013). New media landscapes and the science information consumer. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14096-14101.

Brossard, D. (2016). Science and Social Media. Presentation at the 2nd meeting of the Committee on the Science of Science Communication: A Research Agenda, Washington, DC, February 25. Available: http://sites.nationalacademies.org/cs/groups/dbassesite/documents/webpage/dbasse_171456.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Brossard, D., and Nisbet, M.C. (2007). Deference to scientific authority among a low information public: Understanding U.S. opinion on agricultural biotechnology. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19(1), 24-52.

Brossard, D., and Scheufele, D.A. (2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41.

Brossard, D., Lewenstein, B., and Bonney, R. (2005). Scientific knowledge and attitude change: The impact of a citizen science project. International Journal of Science Education, 27(9), 1099-1121.

Brown, P. (1992). Popular epidemiology and toxic waste contamination: Lay and professional ways of knowing. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 33(3), 267-281.

Brownell, K.D., and Warner, K.E. (2009). The perils of ignoring history: Big Tobacco played dirty and millions died. How similar is Big Food?. Milbank Quarterly, 87(1), 259-294.

Brownson, R.C., Colditz, G.A., and Proctor, E.K. (2012). Dissemination and Implementation Research in Health: Translating Science to Practice. New York: Oxford University Press.

Bruine de Bruin, W., and Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14062-14068.

Bruine de Bruin, W., and Wong-Parodi, G. (2014). The role of initial affective impressions in responses to educational communications: The case of carbon capture and sequestration (CCS). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(2), 126-135.

Bruine de Bruin, W., Parker, A.M., and Fischhoff, B. (2007). Individual differences in adult decision-making competence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(5), 938-956.

Bryk, A.S., Gomez, L.M., and Grunow, A. (2011). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. In M. Hallinan (Ed.), Frontiers in Sociology of Education (pp. 127-162). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer Publishing.

Budescu, D.V., Broomell, S., and Por, H.H. (2009). Improving communication of uncertainty in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Psychological Science, 20(3), 299-308.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Budescu, D.V., Por, H.H., and Broomell, S.B. (2012). Effective communication of uncertainty in the IPCC reports. Climatic Change, 113(2), 181-200.

Budescu, D.V., Por, H.H., Broomell, S.B., and Smithson, M. (2014). The interpretation of IPCC probabilistic statements around the world. Nature Climate Change, 4(6), 508-512.

Byrne, S., and Hart, P.S. (2009). The boomerang effect: A synthesis of findings and a preliminary theoretical framework. Annals of the International Communication Association, 33(1), 3-37.

Cacciatore, M.A., Binder, A.R., Scheufele, D.A., and Shaw, B.R. (2012). Public attitudes toward biofuels: Effects of knowledge, political partisanship, and media use. Politics and the Life Sciences, 31(1), 36-51.

Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., and Corley, E.A. (2014). Another (methodological) look at knowledge gaps and the Internet’s potential for closing them. Public Understanding of Science, 23(4), 376-394.

Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., and Iyengar, S. (2016). The end of framing as we know it… and the future of media effects. Mass Communication and Society, 19(1), 7-23.

Cappella, J.N., and Jamieson, K.H. (1997). Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. New York: Oxford University Press.

Carnevale, J.J., Inbar, Y., and Lerner, J.S. (2011). Individual differences in need for cognition and decision-making competence among leaders. Personality and Individual Differences, 51(3), 274-278.

Chang, V. Y., Arora, V.M., Lev-Ari, S., D’Arcy, M., and Keysar, B. (2010). Interns overestimate the effectiveness of their hand-off communication. Pediatrics, 125(3), 491-496.

Chapman, G.B., and Liu, J. (2009). Numeracy, frequency, and Bayesian reasoning. Judgment and Decision Making, 4(1), 34-40.

Chi, M.T.H., Feltovich, P., and Glaser, R. (1981). Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cognitive Science, 5(2), 121-152.

Chowdhury, P.D., Haque, C.E., and Driedger, S.M. (2012). Public versus expert knowledge and perception of climate change-induced heat wave risk: A modified mental model approach. Journal of Risk Research, 15(2), 149-168.

Christakis, N.A., and Fowler, J.H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine, 32(4), 556-577.

Chryssochoidis, G., Strada, A., and Krystallis, A. (2009). Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: Towards integrating extant knowledge. Journal of Risk Research, 12(2), 137-185.

Coburn, C.E., and Penuel, W.R. (2016). Research-practice partnerships in education outcomes, dynamics, and open questions. Educational Researcher, 45(1), 48-54.

Cohen-Vogel, L. Tichnor-Wagner, A., Allen, D. Harrrison, C., Kainz, K., Rose Socol, A., and Wang, Q. (2015). Implementing educational innovations at scale: Transforming researchers into continuous improvement scientists. Educational Policy, 29(2), 257-277.

Coleman, R., Thorson, E., and Wilkins, L. (2011). Testing the effect of framing and sourcing in health news stories. Journal of Health Communication, 16(9), 941-954.

Colquitt, J.A., and Rodell, J.B. (2011). Justice, trust, and trustworthiness: A longitudinal analysis integrating three theoretical perspectives. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1183-1206.

Contractor, N., and DeChurch, L. (2014). Integrating social networks and human motives to achieve social influence at scale. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13650-13657.

Cook, T.E. (1996). Afterword: Political values and production values. Political Communication, 13(4), 469-481.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Cook, J. (2016). Countering climate science denial and communicating scientific consensus. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Climate Science. Available: http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-314 [November 30, 2016].

Cook, J., and Lewandowsky, S. (2011). The Debunking Handbook. St. Lucia, Australia: University of Queensland.

Corley, E.A., and Scheufele, D.A. (2010). Outreach gone wrong? When we talk nano to the public, we are leaving behind key audiences. The Scientist, 24(1), 22.

Corley, E.A., Kim, Y., and Scheufele, D.A. (2012). Public challenges of nanotechnology regulation. Jurimetrics: The Journal of Law, Science and Technology, 52(3), 371-381.

Corner, A., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Geoengineering the climate: The social and ethical implications. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 52(1), 24-37.

Corner, A., Whitmarsh, L., and Xenias, D. (2012). Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: Biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Climatic Change, 114(3), 463-478.

Critchley, C.R. (2008). Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 309-327.

Cvetkovich, G., Siegrist, M., Murray, R., and Tragesser, S. (2002). New information and social trust: Asymmetry and perseverance of attributions about hazard managers. Risk Analysis, 22(2), 359-367.

Dahlstrom, M.F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with non-expert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13614-13620.

Dalrymple, K.E., Shaw, B.R., and Brossard, D. (2013). Following the leader: Using opinion leaders in environmental strategic communication. Society & Natural Resources, 26(12), 1438-1453.

Dalrymple, K.E., Young, R., and Tully, M. (2016). “Facts, not fear”: Negotiating uncertainty on social media during the 2014 Ebola crisis. Science Communication, 38(4), 442-467.

Davies, T., and Gangadharan, S.P. (Eds.) (2009). Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Delli Carpini, M.X.D., Cook, F.L., and Jacobs, L.R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344.

Del Vicario, M., Bessib, A. Zollo, F., Petroni, F., Scala, A., Caldarelli, G., Stanley, H.E., and Quattrociocchi, W. (2016). The spreading of misinformation online. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(3), 554-559.

Dewey, J. (1927). The Public and Its Problems. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

Dieckmann, N.F., Slovic, P., and Peters, E. (2009). The use of narrative evidence and explicit likelihood by decisionmakers varying in numeracy. Risk Analysis, 29(10), 1473-1488.

Dieckmann, N.F., Johnson, B.B., Gregory, R., Mayorga, M., Han, P.K., and Slovic, P. (2015). Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?. Public Understanding of Science [online].

Dieckmann, N.F., Gregory, R., Peters, E., and Hartman, R. (in press). Seeing what you want to see: How imprecise uncertainty ranges enhance motivated cognition. Risk Analysis.

Dierking, L.D., and Falk, J.H. (2016). 2020 Vision: Envisioning a new generation of STEM learning research. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 11(1), 1-10.

Dietz, T. (2013a). Bringing values and deliberation to science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14081-14087.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Dietz, T. (2013b). Epistemology, ontology, and the practice of structural human ecology. In T. Dietz and A.K. Jorgenson (Eds.), Structural Human Ecology: Essays in Risk, Energy, and Sustainability (pp. 31-52). Pullman, WA: WSU Press.

Dietz, T. (2015). Environmental values. In T. Brosch and D. Sander (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Values (pp. 329-349). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Dietz, T., and Rycroft, R.W. (1987). The Risk Professionals. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Dietz, T., Stern, P.C., and Rycroft, R.W. (1989). Definitions of conflict and the legitimation of resources: The case of environmental risk. Sociological Forum, 4(1), 47-70.

Dietz, T., Dan, A., and Shwom, R. (2007). Support for climate change policy: Social psychological and social structural influences. Rural Sociology, 72(2), 185-214.

Ding, D., Maibach, E.W., Zhao, X., Roser-Renouf, C., and Leiserowitz, A. (2011). Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement. Nature Climate Change, 1(9), 462-466.

Dixon, G.N., and Clarke, C.E. (2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358-382.

Dobbins, M., Robeson, P., Ciliska, D., Hanna, S., Cameron, R., O’Mara, L., DeCorby, K., and Mercer, S. (2009). A description of a knowledge broker role implemented as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating three knowledge translation strategies. Implementation Science, 4(1), 1.

Downs, J.S., Murray, P.J., Bruine de Bruin, W., White, J.P., Palmgren, C., and Fischhoff, B. (2004). Interactive video behavioral intervention to reduce adolescent females’ STD risk: A randomized controlled trial. Social Science and Medicine, 59(8), 1561-1572.

Downs, J.S., Bruine de Bruin, W., and Fischhoff, B. (2008). Parents’ vaccination comprehension and decisions. Vaccine, 26(12), 1595-1607.

Druckman, J.N. (2015). Communicating policy-relevant science. PS: Political Science & Politics, 48(Special Issue 1), 58-69.

Dunlap, R.E., and Jacques, P.J. (2013). Climate change denial books and conservative think tanks: Exploring the connection. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(6), 699-731.

Dunlap, R.E., and McCright, A.M. (2010). Climate change denial: Sources, actors and strategies. In C. Lever-Tracy (Ed.), Handbook of Climate Change and Society (pp. 240-259). Abingdon, UK: Routledge.

Dunwoody, S. (2014). Science journalism. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (pp. 15-26). New York: Routledge.

Dunwoody, S., Brossard, D., and Dudo, A. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-314.

Earle, T.C. (2010). Trust in risk management: A model-based review of empirical research. Risk Analysis, 30(4), 541-574.

Earle, T.C., and Siegrist, M. (2008). On the relation between trust and fairness in environmental risk management. Risk Analysis, 28(5), 1395-1414.

Ellsberg, D. (1961). Risk, ambiguity, and the Savage axioms. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 75(4), 643-669.

Entwistle, V.A., France, E.F., Wyke, S., Jepson, R., Hunt, K., Ziebland, S., and Thompson, A. (2011). How information about other people’s personal experiences can help with healthcare decision-making: A qualitative study. Patient Education and Counseling, 85(3), e291-e298.

Epstein, S. (1995). The construction of lay expertise: AIDS activism and the forging of credibility in the reform of clinical trials. Science, Technology and Human Values, 20(4), 408-437.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Evans, A.T., Peters, E., Strasser, A.A., Emery, L.F., Sheerin, K.M., and Romer, D. (2015). Graphic warning labels elicit affective and thoughtful responses from smokers: Results of a randomized clinical trial. PLoS One, 10(12), e0142879.

Eveland, W.P., and Cooper, K.E. (2013). An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14088-14095.

Eveland, Jr., W.P., and Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Connecting news media use with gaps in knowledge and participation. Political Communication, 17(3), 215-237.

Eysenbach, G., and Köhler, C. (2002). How do consumers search for and appraise health information on the world wide web? Qualitative study using focus groups, usability tests, and in-depth interviews. British Medical Journal, 324(337), 573-577.

Fahy, D., and Nisbet, M.C. (2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778-793.

Farrell, J. (2016). Corporate funding and ideological polarization about climate change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(1), 92-97.

Farrelly, M.C., Nonnemaker, J., Davis, K.C., and Hussin, A. (2009). The influence of the national truth® campaign on smoking initiation. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 36(5), 379-384.

Fazio, L.K., Brashier, N.M., Payne, B.K., and Marsh, E.J. (2015). Knowledge does not protect against illusory truth. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 993.

Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.

Finucane, M.L., Alhakami, A., Slovic, P., and Johnson, S.M. (2000). The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 13(1), 1.

Fischhoff, B. (1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 15(2), 137-145.

Fischhoff, B. (2012). Communicating uncertainty fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues in Science and Technology, 28(4), 63-70.

Fischhoff, B. (2013). The sciences of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14033-14039.

Fischhoff, B., and Davis, A. L. (2014). Communicating scientific uncertainty. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13664-13671.

Fischhoff, B., and Kadvany, J. (2011). Risk: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.

Fischhoff, B., and Scheufele, D.A. (2013). The science of science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14031-14032.

Fischhoff, B., and Scheufele, D.A. (2014). The science of science communication II. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13583-13584.

Fiske, S.T., and Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593-13597.

Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., and Glick, P. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77-83.

Fowler, E.F., and Gollust, S.E. (2015). The content and effect of politicized health controversies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 155-171.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Flynn, J., Slovic, P., and Mertz, C. K. (1994). Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 14(6), 1101-1108.

Frank, K., Chen, I.C., Lee, Y., Kalafatis, S., Chen, T., Lo, Y.J., and Lemos, M.C. (2012). Network location and policy-oriented behavior: An analysis of two-mode networks of coauthored documents concerning climate change in the Great Lakes region. Policy Studies Journal, 40(3), 492-515.

Freimuth, V.S., Quinn, S.C., Thomas, S.B., Cole, G., Zook, E., and Duncan, T. (2001). African Americans’ views on research and the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Social Science and Medicine, 52(5), 797-808.

Freudenburg, W.R., Gramling, R., and Davidson, D.J. (2008). Scientific Certainty Argumentation Methods (SCAMs): Science and the politics of doubt. Sociological Inquiry, 78(1), 2-38. Available: http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/students/envs_4800/freudenberg_2008.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Frewer, L.J., and Salter, B. (2007). Societal trust in risk analysis: Implications for the interface of risk assessment and risk management. In M. Siegrist, T.C. Earle, and H. Gutscher (Eds.), Trust in Cooperative Risk Management: Uncertainty in Scepticism in the Public Mind (pp. 143-158). Sterling, VA: Earthscan.

Frewer, L.J., Miles, S., Brennan, M., Kuznesof, S., Ness, M., and Ritson, C. (2002). Public preferences for informed choice under conditions of risk uncertainty. Public Understanding of Science, 11(4), 363-372.

Funtowicz, S.O., and Ravetz, J.R. (1992). Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal science. In S. Krimsky and D. Golding (Eds.), Social Theories of Risk (pp. 251-274). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gallagher, K.M., and Updegraff, J.A. (2012). Health message framing effects on attitudes, intentions, and behavior: A meta-analytic review. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 43(1), 101-116.

Gaskell, G., Allum, N., Bauer, M., Durant, J., Allansdottir, A., Bonfadelli, H., Boy, D., de Cheveigné, S., Fjaestad, B., Gutteling, J.M., Hampel, J., Jelsøe, E., Jesuino, J.C., Kohring, M., Kronberger, N., Midden, C., Nielsen, T.H., Przestalski, A., Rusanen, T., Sakellaris, G., Torgersen, H., Twardowski, T., and Wagner, W. (2000). Biotechnology and the European public. Nature Biotechnology, 18(9), 935-938.

Gauchat, G. (2011). The cultural authority of science: Public trust and acceptance of organized science. Public Understanding of Science, 20(6), 751-770.

Gauchat, G. (2012). Politicization of science in the public sphere a study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review, 77(2), 167-187.

Gelman, A., and Loken, E. (2013). The Garden of Forking Paths: Why Multiple Comparisons Can Be a Problem, Even When There is No “Fishing Expedition” or “P-Hacking” and the Research Hypothesis was Posited Ahead of Time. Available: http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~gelman/research/unpublished/p_hacking.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Ginsburg, A., and Smith, M.S. (2016). Do Randomized Control Trials Meet the “Gold Standard”? A Study of the Usefulness of RCTs in the What Works Clearinghouse. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

Glasgow, R.E., and Emmons, K.M. (2007). How can we increase translation of research into practice? Types of evidence needed. Annual Review of Public Health, 28, 413-433.

Goldstein, N.J., Cialdini, R.B., and Griskevicius, V. (2008). A room with a viewpoint: Using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. Journal of Consumer Research, 35(3), 472-482.

Green, L.A., and Seifert, C.M. (2005). Translation of research into practice: Why we can’t “just do it.” The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 18(6), 541-545.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Groeneveld, P.W., Sonnad, S.S., Lee, A.K., Asch, D.A., and Shea, J.E. (2006). Racial differences in attitudes toward innovative medical technology. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(6), 559-563.

Gromet, D.M., Kunreuther, H., and Larrick, R.P. (2013). Political ideology affects energy-efficiency attitudes and choices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(23), 9314-9319.

Grunig, J.E., Grunig, L.A., Sriramesh, K., Huang, Y.H., and Lyra, A. (1995). Models of public relations in an international setting. Journal of Public Relations Research, 7(3), 163-186.

Ham, B. (2015). Incoming AAAS CEO Rush Holt Encourages Science Policy Advocacy. Available: https://www.aaas.org/news/incoming-aaas-ceo-rush-holt-encourages-science-policy-advocacy [November 30, 2016].

Hampton, K.N. Rainie, L., Lu, W., Dwyer, M., Shin, I., and Purcell, K. (2014). Social Media and the “Spiral of Silence.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/08/26/social-media-and-the-spiral-of-silence [November 30, 2016].

Han, P.K., Klein, W.M., Lehman, T., Killam, B., Massett, H., and Freedman, A.N. (2011a). Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates effects and influential factors. Medical Decision Making, 31(2), 354-366.

Han, P.K., Klein, W.M., and Arora, N.K. (2011b). Varieties of uncertainty in health care a conceptual taxonomy. Medical Decision Making, 31(6), 828-838.

Hart, P.S. (2010). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication, 33(1), 28-51.

Hart, P.S. (2013). The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 785-798.

Hart, P.S., and Nisbet, N.C. (2012). Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies. Communication Research, 39(6), 701-723.

Haustein, S., Peters, I., Sugimoto, C.R., Thelwall, M., and Larivière, V. (2014). Tweeting biomedicine: An analysis of tweets and citations in the biomedical literature. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 65(4), 656-669.

Henry, A.D. (2011). Ideology, power, and the structure of policy networks. Policy Studies Journal, 39(3), 361-383.

Henry, A.D., and Dietz, T. (2011). Information, networks, and the complexity of trust in commons governance. International Journal of the Commons, 5(2).

Henry, A.D., and Vollan, B. (2014). Networks and the challenge of sustainable development. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 39, 583-610.

Henry, A.D., Lubell, M., and McCoy, M. (2011). Belief systems and social capital as drivers of policy network structure: The case of California regional planning. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21(3), 419-444.

Hine, D.W., Phillips, W.J., Cooksey, R., Reser, J.P., Nunn, P., Marks, A.D., Loi, N.M., and Watt, S.E. (2016). Preaching to different choirs: How to motivate dismissive, uncommitted, and alarmed audiences to adapt to climate change?. Global Environmental Change, 36, 1-11.

Hmielowski, J.D., Feldman, L., Myers, T.A., Lieserowitz, A., and Maibach, E. (2014). An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perception of global warming. Public Understanding of Science, 23(7), 866-883.

Ho, S.S., Brossard, D., and Scheufele, D.A. (2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171-192.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Hon, L.C., and Grunig, J.E. (1999). Guidelines for Measuring Relationships in Public Relations. Available: http://www.shape.nato.int/resources/9/conference%202011/guidelines_measuring_relationships[1].pdf [November 30, 2016].

Hornik, R. (2002). Public health communication: Making sense of the contradictory evidence. In R. Hornik (Ed.), Public Health Communication: Evidence for Behavior Change (pp. 1-22). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Hornsey, M.J., Harris, E.A., Bain, P.G., and Fielding, K.S. (2016). Meta-analyses of the determinants and outcomes of belief in climate change. Nature Climate Change, 6, 622-626.

Howell, A.P., Shaw, B.R., and Alvarez, G. (2014). Bait shop owners as opinion leaders: A test of the theory of planned behavior to predict pro-environmental outreach behaviors and intentions. Environment and Behavior, 47(10), 1107-1126.

Hurlstone, M.J., Lewandowsky, S., Newell, B.R., and Sewell, B. (2014). The effect of framing and normative messages in building support for climate policies. PloS One, 9(12), e114335.

Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

Institute of Medicine. (1994). Adverse Events Associated with Childhood Vaccines: Evidence Bearing on Causality. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2002). Immunization Safety Review: Multiple Immunizations and Immune Dysfunction. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2010). Bridging the Evidence Gap in Obesity Prevention: A Framework to Inform Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2013). Environmental Decisions in the Face of Uncertainty. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Institute of Medicine. (2014). Numeracy and the Affordable Care Act: Opportunities and challenges. In E. Peters, L. Meilleur, and M. K. Tompkins (Eds.), Health Literacy and Numeracy: Workshop Summary (Appendix A). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Ioannidis, J.P. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124.

Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute. (2014). Public Attitudes to Science. Available: https://www.ipsos-mori.com/Assets/Docs/Polls/pas-2014-main-report.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Iyengar, S. (1991). Is Anyone Responsible?: How Television Frames Political Issues. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S. (1996). Framing responsibility for political issues. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 546, 59-70.

Iyengar, S., and Kinder, D.R. (1987). News that Matters: Agenda-Setting and Priming in a Television Age. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Iyengar, S., and McGrady, J. (2007). Media Politics: A Citizen’s Guide. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.

Jacks, J., and Devine, P.G. (2000). Attitude importance, forewarning of message content, and resistance to persuasion. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 22(1), 19-29.

Jamieson, K.H., and Hardy, B.W. (2014). Leveraging scientific credibility about Arctic sea ice trends in a polarized political environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13598-13605.

Jasanoff, S., Hurlbut, J.B., and Saha, K. (2015). CRISPR democracy: Gene editing and the need for inclusive deliberation. Issues in Science and Technology, 32(1), 37.

Johnson, B.B., and Slovic, P. (1995). Presenting uncertainty in health risk assessment: Initial studies of its effects on risk perception and trust. Risk Analysis, 15(4), 485-494.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Joslyn, S.L., and LeClerc, J.E. (2012). Uncertainty forecasts improve weather related decisions and attenuate the effects of forecast error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(1), 126-140.

Joslyn, S., Nemec, L., and Savelli, S. (2013). The benefits and challenges of predictive interval forecasts and verification graphics for end users. Weather, Climate, and Society, 5(2), 133-147.

Kahan, D.M. (2012). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 407-424.

Kahan, D.M. (2015). Climate-science communication and the measurement problem. Political Psychology, 36(Suppl. 1), 1-43.

Kahan, D.M. (2016). The Strongest Evidence to Date...: What the van der Linden et al. (2015) Data Actually Show. Yale Law and Economics Research Paper No. 542. New Haven, CT: Yale University, Yale Law School.

Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., and Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-90.

Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J., and Slovic, P. (2010). Who fears the HPV vaccine, who doesn’t, and why? An experimental study of the mechanisms of cultural cognition. Law and Human Behavior, 34(6), 501-516.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Macmillan Publishers.

Kanouse, D.E., Schlesinger, M., Shaller, D., Martino, S.C., and Rybowski, L. (2016). How patient comments affect consumers’ use of physician performance measures. Medical Care, 54, 24-31.

Kaplan, L. (2000). Public participation in nuclear facility decisions: Lessons from Hanford. In D.L. Kleinman (Ed.), Science, Technology and Democracy (pp. 67-83). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kaplan, S., and Garrick, B.J. (1981). On the quantitative definition of risk. Risk Analysis, 1(1), 11-27.

Karpowitz, C.F., Mendelberg, T., and Shaker, L. (2012). Gender inequality in deliberative participation. American Political Science Review, 106(3), 533-547.

Keller, C., Siegrist, M., and Gutscher, H. (2006). The role of the affect and availability heuristics in risk communication. Risk Analysis, 26(3), 631-639.

Keohane, R.O., Lane, M., and Oppenheimer, M. (2014). The ethics of scientific communication under uncertainty. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 13(4), 343-368.

Kepplinger, H.M. (1992). Artificial horizons: How the press presented and how the population received technology in Germany from 1965-1986. In S. Rothman (Ed.), The Mass Media in Liberal Democratic Societies (pp. 147-176). New York: Peragon.

Kepplinger, H.M. (1995). Individual and institutional impacts upon press coverage of sciences: The case of nuclear power and genetic engineering in Germany. In M. Bauer (Ed.), Resistance to New Technology: Nuclear Power, Information Technology, and Biotechnology (pp. 357-377). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kim, S., Scheufele, D.A., and Shanahan, J.E. (2002). Agenda-setting, priming, framing and second-levels in local politics. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 7-25.

Kinchy, A., Jalbert, K., and Lyons, J. (2014). What is volunteer water monitoring good for? Fracking and the plural logics of participatory science. Political Power and Social Theory, 27(2), 259-289.

Kingdon, J.W. (1995). Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies (2nd Edition). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.

Kothari, A., MacLean, L., Edwards, N., and Hobbs, A. (2011). Indicators at the interface: Managing policymaker-researcher collaboration. Knowledge Management Research and Practice, 9(3), 203-214.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Kotler, P.T., and Keller, K.L. (2015). Marketing Management (15th Edition). Uttar Pradesh, India: Pearson India Education Services.

Kraft, P.W., Lodge, M., and Taber, C.S. (2015). Why people “don’t trust the evidence” motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121-133.

Kümpel, A.S., Karnowski, V., and Keyling, T. (2015). News sharing in social media: A review of current research on news sharing users, content, and networks. Social Media+ Society, 1(2), 2056305115610141.

Ladwig, P., Anderson, A.A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., and Shaw, B. (2010). Narrowing the nano discourse? Materials Today, 13(5), 52-54.

Lang, J.T., and Hallman, W.K. (2005). Who does the public trust? The case of genetically modified food in the United States. Risk Analysis, 25(5), 1241-1252.

Lavis, J.N. (2006). Research, public policymaking, and knowledge-translation processes: Canadian efforts to build bridges. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 26(1), 37-45.

Lazer, D. (2015). The rise of the social algorithm. Science, 348(6239), 1090-1091.

Lazrus, H., Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Lazo, J.K., and Bostrom, A. (2016). “Know what to do if you encounter a flash flood”: Mental models analysis for improving flash flood risk communication and public decision making. Risk Analysis, 36(2), 411-427.

LeClerc, J., and Joslyn, S. (2012). Odds ratio forecasts increase precautionary action for extreme weather events. Weather, Climate, and Society, 4(4), 263-270.

Lefebvre, R.C. (2013). Social Marketing and Social Change: Strategies and Tools for Improving Health, Well-Being, and the Environment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., and Feinberg, G. (2013). How Americans Communicate about Global Warming in April 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available: http://environment.yale.edu/climatecommunication-OFF/files/Communication-April-2013.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Leiserowitz, A., Maibach, E., Roser-Renouf, C., Feinberg, G., and Rosenthal, S. (2014). Americans’ Actions to Limit Global Warming in November 2013. New Haven, CT: Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. Available: http://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication-OFF/files/Behavior-November-2013.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Leith, P., Haward, M., Rees, C., and Ogier, E. (2016). Success and evolution of a boundary organization. Science, Technology and Human Values, 41(3), 375-401.

Lemos, M.C., Kirchhoff, C.J., Kalafatis, S.E., Scavia, D., and Rood, R.B. (2014). Moving climate information off the shelf: Boundary chains and the role of RISAs as adaptive organizations. Weather, Climate, and Society, 6(2), 273-285.

Leshner, A.I. (2003). Public engagement with science. Science, 299(5609), 977.

Lewandowsky, S., Ecker, U.K., Seifert, C.M., Schwarz, N., and Cook, J. (2012). Misinformation and its correction continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106-131.

Liang, X., Su, L.Y.F., Yeo, S.K., Scheufele, D.A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Nealey, P., and Corley, E.A. (2014). Building buzz (scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly [online].

Lodge, M., and Taber, C.S. (2013). The Rationalizing Voter. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Löfstedt, R.E. (2003). Science communication and the Swedish acrylamide “alarm.” Journal of Health Communication, 8(5), 407-432.

Lord, C.G., Ross, L., and Lepper, M.R. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(11), 2098-2109.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Lubchenco, J. (1998). Entering the century of the environment: A new social contract for science. Science, 279(5350), 491-497.

Lubienski, C., Scott, J.T., and DeBray, E. (2014). The politics of research production, promotion, and utilization in educational policy. Educational Policy, 28(2), 131-144.

Lupia, A. (2002). Deliberation disconnected: What it takes to improve civic competence. Law and Contemporary Problems, 65(3), 133-150.

Lupia, A. (2013). Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14048-14054.

Lupia, A., Krupnikov, Y., and Levine, A.S. (2012). Beyond facts and norms: How psychological transparency threatens and restores deliberation’s legitimating potential. Southern California Law Review, 86, 459.

Maibach, E.W., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K., and Diao, G. (2010). Reframing climate change as a public health issue: An exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 1.

Maibach, E.W., Leiserowitz, A., Roser-Renouf, C., and Mertz, C.K. (2011). Identifying like-minded audiences for global warming public engagement campaigns: An audience segmentation analysis and tool development. PLoS One, 6(3), e17571.

Mares, M.L. (1996). The role of source confusions in television’s cultivation of social reality judgments. Human Communication Research, 23(2), 278-297.

Markowitz, E.M., Slovic, P., Västfjäll, D., and Hodges, S.D. (2013). Compassion fade and the challenge of environmental conservation. Judgment and Decision Making, 8(4), 397-406.

Matei, S., and Ball-Rokeach, S. (2003). The Internet in the communication infrastructure of urban residential communities: Macro- or mesolinkage? Journal of Communication, 53(4), 642-657.

McComas, K.A., and Besley, J.C. (2011). Fairness and nanotechnology concern. Risk Analysis, 31(11), 1749-1761.

McComas, K., and Shanahan, J. (1999). Telling stories about global climate change measuring the impact of narratives on issue cycles. Communication Research, 26(1), 30-57.

McComas, K.A., Tuite, L.S., Waks, L., and Sherman, L.A. (2007). Predicting satisfaction and outcome acceptance with advisory committee meetings: The role of procedural justice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 37(5), 905-927.

McCombs, M. (2004). Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

McCright, A.M. (2000). Challenging global warming as a social problem: An analysis of the conservative movement’s counter-claims. Social Problems, 47(4), 499-522.

McCright, A.M., and Dunlap, R.E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348-373.

McCright, A.M., and Dunlap, R.E. (2010). Anti-reflexivity the American conservative movement’s success in undermining climate science and policy. Theory, Culture & Society, 27(2-3), 100-133.

McCright, A.M., Dunlap, R.E., and Xiao, C. (2013a). Perceived scientific agreement and support for government action on climate change in the USA. Climatic Change, 119(2).

McCright, A.M., Dentzman, K., Charters, M., and Dietz, T. (2013b). The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters, 8(4).

McCright, A.M., Charters, M., Dentzman, K., and Dietz, T. (2015). Examining the effectiveness of climate change frames in the face of a climate change denial counterframe. Topics in Cognitive Science, 81(1).

McCright, A.M., Marquart-Pyatt, S M., Shwom, R.L., Brechin, S.R., and Allen, S. (2016). Ideology, capitalism, and climate: Explaining public views about climate change in the United States. Energy Research and Social Science, 21, 180-189.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

McCuin, J.L., Hayhoe, K., and Hayhoe, D. (2014). Comparing the effects of traditional vs. misconceptions-based instruction on student understanding of the greenhouse effect. Journal of Geoscience Education, 62(3), 445-459.

McFadden, B.R., and Lusk, J.L. (2016). What consumers don’t know about genetically modified food, and how that affects beliefs. The FASEB Journal, 30(9), 3091-3096.

McKeever, B.W., McKeever, R., Holton, A.E., and Li, J.Y. (2016). Silent majority: Childhood vaccinations and antecedents to communicative action. Mass Communication and Society, 19(4), 1-23.

Mendelberg, T., Karpowitz, C.F., and Oliphant, J.B. (2014). Gender inequality in deliberation: Unpacking the black box of interaction. Perspectives on Politics, 12(1), 18-44.

Merkle, D.M. (1996). The polls—review: The national issues convention deliberative poll. Public Opinion Quarterly, 60(4), 588-619.

Michaels, D.M. (2006). Manufactured uncertainty: Protecting public health in the age of contested science and product defense. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1076(1), 149-162.

Michaels, D.M. (2008). Doubt Is Their Product: How Industry’s Assault on Science Threatens Your Health. New York: Oxford University Press.

Michaels, D.M., and Monforton, C. (2005). Manufacturing uncertainty: Contested science and the protection of the public’s health and environment. American Journal of Public Health, 95(Suppl. 1), S39-S48.

Milkman, K.L., and Berger, J. (2014). The science of sharing and the sharing of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13642-13649.

Miller, J.D., Pardo, R., and Niwa, F. (1997). Public Perceptions of Science and Technology: A Comparative Study of the European Union, the United Status, Japan, and Canada. Chicago, IL: Chicago Academy of Sciences.

Mitchell, A., Gottfried, J., Barthel, M., and Shearer, E. (2016). The Modern News Consumer: News Attitudes and Practices in the Digital Era. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available: http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/the-modern-news-consumer/ [November 30, 2016].

Mnookin, S. (2012). The Panic Virus: The True Story Behind the Vaccine-Autism Controversy. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Morgan, M.G., Cantor, R., Clark, W.C., Fisher, A., Jacoby, H.D., Janetos, A.C., Kinzig, A.P. Melillo, J., Street, R.B., and Wilbanks, T. (2005). Learning from the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Change Impacts. Environmental Science and Technology, 39(23), 9023-9032.

Morrison, S. (2013). Hard numbers: Weird science. Columbia Journalism Review. Available: http://www.cjr.org/currents/hard_numbers_jf2013.php [November 30, 2016].

Morss, R.E., Demuth, J.L., Bostrom, A., Lazo, J.K., and Lazrus, H. (2015). Flash flood risks and warning decisions: A mental models study of forecasters, public officials, and media broadcasters in Boulder, Colorado. Risk Analysis, 35(11), 2009-2028.

Moser, S.C. (2014). Communicating adaptation to climate change: The art and science of public engagement when climate change comes home. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 5(3), 337-358.

Munro, G.D., and Ditto, P.H. (1997). Biased assimilation, attitude polarization, and affect in reactions to stereotype-relevant scientific information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23(6), 636-653.

Munro, G.D., Ditto, P.H., Lockhart, L.K., Fagerlin, A., Gready, M., and Peterson, E. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24(1), 15-26.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Myers, T.A., Maibach, E., Peters, E., and Leiserowitz, A. (2015). Simple messages help set the record straight about scientific agreement on human-caused climate change: The results of two experiments. PLoS One, 10(3), e0120985.

Nan, X., Dahlstrom, M.F., Richards, A., and Rangarajan, S. (2015). Influence of evidence type and narrative type on HPV risk perception and intention to obtain the HPV vaccine. Health Communication, 30(3), 301-308.

National Academy of Sciences. (2014). The Science of Science Communication II: Summary of a Colloquium. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016a). Effective Chemistry Communication in Informal Environments. Division on Earth and Life Studies, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology, Board on Science Education, Committee on Communicating Chemistry in Informal Settings. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016b). Gene Drives on the Horizon: Advancing Science, Navigating Uncertainty, and Aligning Research with Public Values. Committee on Gene Drive Research in Non-Human Organisms: Recommendations for Responsible Conduct, Board on Life Sciences, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016c). Science Literacy: Concepts, Contexts, and Consequences. C.E. Snow and K.A. Dibner (Eds.), Committee on Science Literacy and Public Perception of Science, Board on Science Education, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (1996). Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. P.C. Stern and H.V. Fineberg (Eds.), Committee on Risk Characterization, Board on Environmental Change and Society, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

National Research Council. (2006). Completing the Forecast: Characterizing and Communicating Uncertainty for Better Decisions Using Weather and Climate Forecasts. Division on Earth and Life Studies, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Committee on Estimating and Communicating Uncertainty in Weather and Climate Forecasts. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2007). Analysis of Global Change Assessments: Lessons Learned. Committee on Analysis of Global Change Assessments, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2008). Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making. Panel on Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, T. Dietz and P.C. Stern (Eds.), Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2009). Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. P. Bell, B. Lewenstein, A.W. Shouse, and M.A. Feder (Eds.), Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, Board on Science Education, Center for Education, Committee on Learning Science in Informal Environments. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Research Council. (2012). Using Science as Evidence in Public Policy. K. Prewitt, T.A. Schwandt, and M.L. Straf (Eds.), Committee on the Use of Social Science Knowledge in Public Policy, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

National Research Council. (2014). Review of EPA’s Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Process. Committee to Review the IRIS Process, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, Division on Earth and Life Studies. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

National Science Board. (2014). Chapter 7: Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2014. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Board. (2016a). Chapter 7: Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. Available: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/uploads/1/10/chapter-7.pdf [November 8, 2016].

National Science Board. (2016b). Science and Engineering Indicators 2016. NSB-2016-1. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

National Science Foundation. (2015). Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Perspectives on Robust and Reliable Science. Report of the Subcommittee on Replicability in Science Advisory Committee to the National Science Foundation Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

Neeley, E., Goldman, E., Smith, B., Baron, B., and Sunu, S. (2015). GRADSCICOMM Report and Recommendations: Mapping the Pathways to Integrate Science Communication Training into STEM Graduate Education. Available: http://compassblogs.org/gradscicomm [November 30, 2106].

Nelkin, D. (1992). Controversy: Politics of Technical Decisions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Nelkin, D. (1996). An uneasy relationship: The tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet, 347, 1600-1603.

Nickerson, R.S. (1999). How we know—and sometimes misjudge—what others know: Imputing one’s own knowledge to others. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 737.

Niebert, K., and Gropengießer, H. (2014). Understanding the greenhouse effect by embodiment—analysing and using students’ and scientists’ conceptual resources. International Journal of Science Education, 36(2), 277-303.

Niederdeppe, J., Shapiro, M.A., Kim, H.K., Bartolo, D., and Porticella, N. (2014). Narrative persuasion, causality, complex integration, and support for obesity policy. Health Communication, 29(5), 431-444.

Nisbet, M.C. (2005). The competition for worldviews: Values, information, and public support for stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 17(1), 90-112.

Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Public opinion and participation. In J.S. Dryzek, R.B. Norgaard, and D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society (p. 355). New York: Oxford University Press.

Nisbet, M.C. (2014). Engaging the public in science policy controversies: Insights from the U.S. climate change debate. In M. Bucchi and B. Trench (Eds.), Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (2nd Edition) (pp. 173-185). New York: Routledge.

Nisbet, M.C., and Feldman, L. (2011). The social psychology of political communication. In D. Hook, B. Franks, and M. Bauer (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Communication (pp. 284-299). London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Nisbet, M.C., and Huge, M. (2006). Attention cycles and frames in the plant biotechnology debate managing power and participation through the press/policy connection. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 11(2), 3-40.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Nisbet, M.C., and Huge, M. (2007). Where do science debates come from? Understanding attention cycles and framing. In D. Brossard, J. Shanahan, and T. C. Nesbitt (Eds.), The Media, the Public and Agricultural Biotechnology (pp. 193-230). Wallingford, UK: CAB International.

Nisbet, M.C., and Kotcher, J.E. (2009). A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328-354.

Nisbet, M.C., and Markowitz, E. (2016). Science Communication Research: Bridging Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Nisbet, M.C., and Scheufele, D.A. (2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778.

Nisbet, M.C., Scheufele, D.A., Shanahan, J., Moy, P. Brossard, D., and Lewenstein, B. V. (2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608.

Nisbet, M.C., Brossard, D., and Kroepsch, A. (2003). Framing science the stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36-70.

Nisbet, E.C., Hart, P.S., Myers, T., and Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766-785.

Nisbet, E.C., Cooper, K.E., and Garrett, R.K. (2015). The partisan brain how dissonant science messages lead conservatives and liberals to (dis) trust science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36-66.

Noel, H., and Nyhan, B. (2011). The “unfriending” problem: The consequences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence. Social Networks, 33(3), 211-218.

Noelle-Neumann, E. (1993). The Spiral of Silence: Public Opinion, Our Social Skin (2nd Edition). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., and Ubel, P.A. (2013). The hazards of correcting myths about health care reform. Medical Care, 51(2), 127-132.

Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., and Freed, G.L. (2014). Effective messages in vaccine promotion: A randomized trial. Pediatrics, 133(4), e835-e842.

O’Keefe, D.J., and Jensen, J.D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623-644.

O’Keefe, D.J., and Nan, X. (2012). The relative persuasiveness of gain-and loss-framed messages for promoting vaccination: A meta-analytic review. Health Communication, 27(8), 776-783.

Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251).

Oreskes, N., and Conway, E.M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

Oskamp, S., and Schultz, P.W. (2005). Attitudes and Opinions. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Pariser, E. (2012). The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. New York: Penguin Books.

Patterson, T.E. (1994). Out of Order: An Incisive and Boldly Original Critique of the News Media’s Domination of America’s Political Process. New York: Vintage.

Payne, C.R, Shwom, R., and Heaton, S. (2015). Public participation and norm formation for risky technology: Adaptive governance of solar-radiation management. Climate Law, 5(2-4):210-251.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Pearson, A.R., and Schuldt, J.P. (2015). Bridging climate communication divides beyond the partisan gap. Science Communication, 37(6), 805-812.

Peters, J.W. (2010). At Yahoo, using searches to steer news coverage. The New York Times, July 5. p. B1. Available: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/05/business/media/05yahoo.html [November 30, 2016].

Peters, E. (2012a). Beyond comprehension: The role of numeracy in judgments and decisions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(1), 31-35.

Peters, H.P. (2012b). Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In The Sciences’ Media Connection–Public Communication and its Repercussions (pp. 217-239). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Peters, H.P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14102-14109.

Peters, R.G., Covello, V.T., and McCallum, D.B. (1997). The determinants of trust and credibility in environmental risk communication: An empirical study. Risk Analysis, 17(1), 43-54.

Peters, E., Lipkus, I., and Diefenbach, M.A. (2006). The functions of affect in health communications and in the construction of health preferences. Journal of Communication, 56(Suppl. 1), S140-S162.

Peters, E., Dieckmann, N., Dixon, A., Hibbard, J.H., and Mertz, C.K. (2007). Less is more in presenting quality information to consumers. Medical Care Research and Review, 64(2), 169-190.

Peters, E., Hart, P.S., Tusler, M., and Fraenkel, L. (2014). Numbers matter to informed patient choices a randomized design across age and numeracy levels. Medical Decision Making, 34(4), 430-442.

Pew Research Center. (2009a). Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Scientific Achievements Less Prominent Than a Decade Ago. Available: http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media [November 8, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2009b). Growing Interest in Swine Flu, Many See Press Overstating Its Danger. Available: http://www.people-press.org/2009/10/15/growing-interest-in-swine-flu-many-see-press-overstating-its-danger [November 30, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2014). Ebola Worries Rise, But Most Are “Fairly” Confident in Government, Hospitals to Deal with Disease. Available: http://www.people-press.org/2014/10/21/ebola-worries-rise-but-most-are-fairly-confident-in-governmenthospitals-to-deal-with-disease/ [November 30, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2015a). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society [November 30, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2015b). Religion and Science. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/10/22/science-and-religion [November 30, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2016a). State of the News Media 2016. Available: http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/newspapers-fact-sheet [November 30, 2016].

Pew Research Center. (2016b). The Politics of Climate. Available: http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate [November 30, 2016].

Pielke Jr., R.A. (2007). The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Politi, M.C., Han, P.K., and Col, N.F. (2007). Communicating the uncertainty of harms and benefits of medical interventions. Medical Decision Making, 27(5), 681-695.

Politi, M.C., Clark, M.A., Ombao, H., Dizon, D., and Elwyn, G. (2011). Communicating uncertainty can lead to less decision satisfaction: A necessary cost of involving patients in shared decision making?. Health Expectations, 14(1), 84-91.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Rabinovich, A., and Morton, T.A. (2012). Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change risk communication. Risk Analysis, 32(6), 992-1002.

Rahn, W.M., and Transue, J.E. (1998). Social trust and value change: The decline of social capital in American youth, 1976-1995. Political Psychology, 19(3), 545-565.

Ranney, M.A., Clark, D., Reinholz, D.L., and Cohen, S. (2012). Changing global warming beliefs with scientific information: Knowledge, attitudes, and RTMD (Reinforced Theistic Manifest Destiny theory). In Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2228-2233). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.

Ratner, R.K., and Riis, J. (2014). Communicating science-based recommendations with memorable and actionable guidelines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13634-13641.

Renn, O. (2008). Risk Governance: Coping with Uncertainty in a Complex World. London, UK: Earthscan.

Renn, O., and Levine, D. (1991). Credibility and trust in risk communication. In Communicating Risks to the Public (pp. 175-217). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Reyna, V.F., and Brainerd, C.J. (1991). Fuzzy trace theory and framing effects in choice: Gist extraction, truncation, and conversion. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 4(4), 249-262.

Reyna, V.F., Nelson, W.L., Han, P.K., and Dieckmann, N.F. (2009). How numeracy influences risk comprehension and medical decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 135(6), 943-973.

Rice, R.E., and Foote, D.R. (2001). Public Communication Campaigns. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

Roduta-Roberts, M., Reid, G., Schroeder, M., and Norris, S.P. (2011). Causal or spurious? The relationship of knowledge and attitudes to trust in science and technology. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 624-641.

Rogers, E.M., Dearing, J.W., and Chang, S. (1991). AIDS in the 1980s: The agenda-setting process for a public issue. Journalism and Communication Monographs, 126.

Rosa, E.A. (1998). Metatheoretical foundations for post-normal risk. Journal of Risk Research, 1(1), 15-44.

Rosa, E.A., Tuler, S.P., Fischhoff, B., Webler, T., Friedman, S.M., Sclove, R.E., Shrader-Frechette, K., English, M.R., Kasperson, R.E., Goble, R.L., Leschine, T.M., Freudenburg, W., Chess, C., Perrow, C., Erikson, K., and Short, J.F. (2010). Nuclear waste: Knowledge waste?. Science, 329(5993), 762-763.

Rosa, E.A., Renn, O., and McCright, A. (2013). The Risk Society Revisited. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Roser-Renouf, C., Maibach, E.W., Leiserowitz, A., and Zhao, X. (2014). The genesis of climate change activism: From key beliefs to political action. Climatic Change, 125(2), 163-178.

Rothman, A.J., and Salovey, P. (1997). Shaping perceptions to motivate healthy behavior: The role of message framing. Psychological Bulletin, 121(1), 3.

Rowland, F.S. (1993). President’s lecture: The need for scientific communication with the public. Science, 260(5114), 1571-1576.

Runge, K.K., Yeo, S.K., Cacciatore, M., Scheufele, D.A., Brossard, D., Xenos, M., Anderson, A., Choi, D.-H., Kim, J., Li, N., Liang, X., Stubbings, M., and Su, L.Y.-F. (2013). Tweeting nano: How public discourses about nanotechnology develop in social media environments. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 15(1), 1-11.

Ryan, C.L., and Bauman, K. (2016). Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015. Available: https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Sarewitz, D. (2015). Science can’t solve it. Nature, 522(7557), 413-414.

Satterfield, T.A., Mertz, C.K., and Slovic, P. (2004). Discrimination, vulnerability, and justice in the face of risk. Risk Analysis, 24(1), 115-129.

Savelli, S., and Joslyn, S. (2013). The advantages of predictive interval forecasts for non-expert users and the impact of visualizations. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 27(4), 527-541.

Scheufele, D.A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of Communication, 49(1), 103-122.

Scheufele, D.A. (2000). Agenda-setting, priming, and framing revisited: Another look at cognitive effects of political communication. Mass Communication and Society, 3(2-3), 297-316.

Scheufele, D.A. (2007). Nano does not have a marketing problem…yet. Nano Today, 2(5), 48.

Scheufele, D.A. (2012). Modern Citizenship or Policy Dead End? Evaluating the Need for Public Participation in Science Policy Making, and Why Public Meetings May Not Be the Answer. Politics and Public Policy Research Paper Series #R-34. Available: http://shorensteincenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/r34_scheufele.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Scheufele, D.A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047.

Scheufele, D.A. (2014). Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Suppl. 4), 13585-13592.

Scheufele, D.A., and Lewenstein, B.V. (2005). The public and nanotechnology: How citizens make sense of emerging technologies. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 7(6), 659-667.

Scheufele, D.A., and Nisbet, M.C. (2002). Being a citizen online new opportunities and dead ends. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 7(3), 55-75.

Scheufele, D.A., and Nisbet, M.C. (2012). Commentary: Online news and the demise of political disagreement. In C.T. Salmon (Ed.), Communication Yearbook (pp. 36-45). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Scheufele, B.T., and Scheufele, D.A. (2010). Of spreading activation, applicability, and schemas. In P. D’Angelo and J.A. Kuypers (Eds.), Doing News Framing Analysis: Empirical and Theoretical Perspectives (pp. 110-134). New York: Routledge.

Scheufele, D.A., Corley, E.A., Shih, T.-J., Dalrymple, K.E., and Ho, S.S. (2009). Religious beliefs and public attitudes to nanotechnology in Europe and the U.S. Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 91-94.

Schuldt, J.P., and Pearson, A.R. (2016). The role of race and ethnicity in climate change polarization: Evidence from a U.S. national survey experiment. Climatic Change, 136(3-4), 495-505.

Schultz, P.W., Nolan, J.M., Cialdini, R.B., Goldstein, N.J., and Griskevicius, V. (2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms. Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434.

Segev, E., and Baram-Tsabari, A. (2010). Seeking science information online: Data mining Google to better understand the roles of the media and the education system. Public Understanding of Science, 21(7), 813-829.

Shafer, M.S. (2012). Online communication on climate change and climate politics: A literature review. WIREs: Climate Change, 3(6), 527-543.

Shaffer V.A., and Zikmund-Fisher, B. (2012). All stories are not alike: Purpose-, content-, and valence-based taxonomy of patient narratives in decision aids. Medical Decision Making, 33(1), 4-13.

Shalizi, C.R., and Thomas, A.C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 40(2), 211-239.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Sherif, M. (Ed.). (1967). Social Interaction: Process and Products. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

Shrum, L.J. (2007). Social cognition and cultivation. In D.R. Roskos-Ewoldsen and J.L. Monahan (Eds.), Communication and Social Cognition: Theories and Methods (pp. 245-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Siegrist, M., Cvetkovich, G., and Roth, C. (2000). Salient value similarity, social trust, and risk/benefit perception. Risk Analysis, 20(3), 353-362.

Sinayev, A., and Peters, E. (2015). The impact of cognitive reflection versus calculation in decision making. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 532.

Sinayev, A., Peters, E., Tusler, M., and Fraenkel, L. (2015). Presenting numeric information with percentages and descriptive risk labels: A randomized trial. Medical Decision Making, 35(8), 937-947.

Singhal, A., and Rogers, E. (2012). Entertainment-Education: A Communication Strategy for Social Change. New York: Routledge.

Skurnik, I., Yoon, C., Park, D.C., and Schwarz, N. (2005). How warnings about false claims become recommendations. Journal of Consumer Research, 31(4), 713-724.

Slater, M.D. (1996). Theory and method in health audience segmentation. Journal of Health Communication, 1(3), 267-284.

Slater, M.D., Hayes, A.F., Reineke, J.B., Long, M., and Bettinghaus, E.P. (2009). Newspaper coverage of cancer prevention: Multilevel evidence for knowledge-gap effects. Journal of Communication, 59(3), 514-533.

Slavin, R.E. (2006). Translating research into widespread practice: The case of success for all. In M.A. Constas and R.J. Sternberg (Eds.), Translating Theory and Research into Educational Practice: Developments in Content Domains, Large Scale Reform, and Intellectual Capacity (pp. 113-126). New York: Routledge.

Slimak, M.W., and Dietz, T. (2006). Personal values, beliefs and ecological risk perception. Risk Analysis, 26(6), 1689-1705.

Slovic, P. (1987). Perception of risk. Science 236(4799), 280-285.

Slovic, P. (1999). Trust, emotion, and sex. Risk Analysis, 19(4), 689-701.

Slovic, P. (2000). The Perception of Risk. London, UK: Earthscan.

Slovic, P. (2016). Understanding perceived risk: 1978-2015. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 58(1), 25-29.

Slovic, P., Finucane, M.L., Peters, E., and MacGregor, D.G. (2004). Risk as analysis and risk as feelings: Some thoughts about affect, reason, risk, and rationality. Risk Analysis, 24(2), 311-322.

Soll, J., Keeney, R., and Larrick, R. (2012). Consumer misunderstanding of credit card use, payments. Journal of Public Policy and Marketing, 32(1), 66-81.

Spartz, J.T., Rickenbach, M., and Shaw, B.R. (2015a). Public perceptions of bioenergy and land use change: Comparing narrative frames of agriculture and forestry. Biomass and Bioenergy, 75, 1-10.

Spartz, J.T., Su, L.Y.F., Griffin, R., Brossard, D., and Dunwoody, S. (2015b). YouTube, social norms and perceived salience of climate change in the American mind. Environmental Communication, 1-16.

Spence, A., and Pidgeon, N. (2010). Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 656-667.

Spiegelhalter, D., Pearson, M., and Short, I. (2011). Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science, 333(6048), 1393-1400.

Steg, L., and de Groot, J.I.M. (2012). Environmental values. In S. Clayton (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Environmental and Conservation Psychology (pp. 81-92). New York: Oxford University Press.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Stephens, E.M., Edwards, T.L., and Demeritt, D. (2012). Communicating probabilistic information from climate model ensembles—lessons from numerical weather prediction. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 3(5), 409-426.

Stewart, D.W. (Ed.). (2014). The Handbook of Persuasion and Social Marketing. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, LLC.

Sturgis, P., and Allum, N. (2004). Science in society: Re-evaluating the deficit model of public attitudes. Public Understanding of Science, 13(1), 55-74.

Su, L.Y.F., Cacciatore, M.A., Scheufele, D.A., Brossard, D., and Xenos, M.A. (2014). Inequalities in scientific understanding differentiating between factual and perceived knowledge gaps. Science Communication, 36(3), 352-378.

Su, L.Y.F., Akin, H., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., and Xenos, M.A. (2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly [online].

Su, L.Y.F., Cacciatore, M.A., Liang, X., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D.A., and Xenos, M.A. (2016). Analyzing public sentiments online: Combining human-and computer-based content analysis. Information, Communication and Society, 20(3), 1-22.

Suhay, E., and Druckman, J.N. (2015). The politics of science political values and the production, communication, and reception of scientific knowledge. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 6-15.

Sullivan, T.M., McPartland, T., and Fisher, B.S. (2013). Guidelines for Successful Researcher Practitioner Partnerships in the Criminal Justice System: Findings from the Researcher-Practitioner Partnerships Study (RPPS). Available: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/243918.pdf [November 30, 2016].

Sunstein, C.R. (2009). Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Taylor, A.L., Dessai, S., and Bruine de Bruin, W. (2015). Communicating uncertainty in seasonal and interannual climate forecasts in Europe. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 373(2055), 1-16.

Teigen, K.H., and Brun, W. (2003). Verbal probabilities: A question of frame?. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 16(1), 53-72.

Teigen, K.H. (2014). Psychology: When very likely is not so likely. Nature Climate Change, 4(6), 421-422.

Tichenor, P.J., Donohue, G.A., and Olien, C.N. (1970). Mass media flow and differential growth in knowledge. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34(2), 159-170.

Tonia, T., Van Oyen, H., Berger, A., Schindler, C., and Künzli, N. (2016). If I tweet will you cite? The effect of social media exposure of articles on downloads and citations. International Journal of Public Health, 61(4), 513-520.

Tseng, V. (2012). Studying the use of research evidence in policy and practice. Social Policy Report, 26(2), 3-16.

Tversky, A., and Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American Community Survey Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2011-2013 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. Available: http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_13_3YR_DP05&prodType=table [August 6, 2016].

van der Linden, S.L., Clarke, C.E., and Maibach, E.W. (2015). Highlighting consensus among medical scientists increases public support for vaccines: Evidence from a randomized experiment. BMC Public Health, 15(1), 1.

Visschers, V.H.M., and Siegrist, M. (2012). Fair play in energy policy decisions: Procedural fairness, outcome fairness and acceptance of the decision to rebuild nuclear power plants. Energy Policy, 46, 292-300.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

Visschers, V.H.M., and Siegrist, M. (2013). How a nuclear power plant accident influences acceptance of nuclear power: Results of a longitudinal study before and after the Fukushima disaster. Risk Analysis, 33(2), 333-347. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01861.x.

Viswanath, K. (2006). Public communications and its role in reducing and eliminating health disparities. In G.E. Thomson, F. Mitchell, and M.B. Williams (Eds.), Examining the Health Disparities Research Plan of the National Institutes of Health: Unfinished Business (pp. 215-253). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.

Volk, R.J., Jibaja-Weiss, M.L., Hawley, S.T., Kneuper, S., Spann, S.J., Miles, B.J., and Hyman, D.J. (2008). Entertainment education for prostate cancer screening: A randomized trial among primary care patients with low health literacy. Patient Education and Counseling, 73(3), 482-489.

Vosniadou, S., and Brewer, W.F. (1992). Mental models of the earth: A study of conceptual change in childhood. Cognitive Psychology, 24(4), 535-585.

Wakefield, M., Flay, B., Nichter, M., and Giovino, G. (2003). Effects of anti-smoking advertising on youth smoking: A review. Journal of Health Communication, 8(3), 229-247.

Wakefield, M.A., Loken, B., and Hornik, R.C. (2010). Use of mass media campaigns to change health behaviour. The Lancet, 376(9748), 1261-1271.

Wallack, L. (1993). Media Advocacy and Public Health: Power for Prevention. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE Publications.

Wallsten, T.S. (1990). Measuring vague uncertainties and understanding their use in decision making. In G.M. von Furstenberg (Ed.), Acting under Uncertainty: Multidisciplinary Conceptions (pp. 377-398). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.

Watts, D.J., and Dodds, P.S. (2007). Influentials, networks, and public opinion formation. Journal of Consumer Research, 34(4), 441-458.

Weiss, C.H. (1988). Evaluation for decisions: Is anybody there? Does anybody care?. Evaluation Practice, 9(1), 5-19.

Whitfield, S.C., Rosa, E.A., Dan, A., and Dietz, T. (2009). The future of nuclear power: Value orientations and risk perception. Risk Analysis, 29(3), 425-437.

Winterbottom, A., and Bekker, H.L. (2009). Should patient stories be used in decision aids?. In A. Edwards and G. Elwyn (Eds.), Shared Decision-making in Health Care: Achieving Evidence-based Patient Choice (pp. 217-222). New York: Oxford University Press.

Winterbottom, A., Bekker, H.L., Conner, M., and Mooney, A. (2008). Does narrative information bias individuals’ decision making? Social Science & Medicine, 67(12), 2079-2088.

Witzling, L., Shaw, B., and Seiler, D. (2016). Segmenting boaters based on level of transience: Outreach and policy implications for the prevention of aquatic invasive species. Biological Invasions, 18(12), 3635-3646.

Wolfe, M., Jones, B.D., and Baumgartner, F.R. (2013). A failure to communicate: Agenda setting in media and policy studies. Political Communication, 30(2), 175-192.

Wynne, B. (1989). Sheep farming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment Magazine, 31(2), 10-15, 33-39.

Yankelovich, D. (1991). Coming to Public Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press.

Yearley, S. (2005). Making Sense of Science. London, UK: SAGE Publications.

Yeo, S.K., Xenos, M.A., Brossard, D., and Scheufele, D.A. (2015). Selecting our own science: How communication contexts and individual traits shape information seeking. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 172-191.

Zikmund-Fisher, B.J. (2013). The right tool is what they need, not what we have: A taxonomy of appropriate levels of precision in patient risk communication. Medical Care Research and Review, 70(Suppl. 1):37S-49S.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×

This page intentionally left blank.

Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"References." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2017. Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23674.
×
Page 124
Next: Appendix A: Agendas of Public Meetings »
Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $48.00 Buy Ebook | $38.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Science and technology are embedded in virtually every aspect of modern life. As a result, people face an increasing need to integrate information from science with their personal values and other considerations as they make important life decisions about medical care, the safety of foods, what to do about climate change, and many other issues. Communicating science effectively, however, is a complex task and an acquired skill. Moreover, the approaches to communicating science that will be most effective for specific audiences and circumstances are not obvious. Fortunately, there is an expanding science base from diverse disciplines that can support science communicators in making these determinations.

Communicating Science Effectively offers a research agenda for science communicators and researchers seeking to apply this research and fill gaps in knowledge about how to communicate effectively about science, focusing in particular on issues that are contentious in the public sphere. To inform this research agenda, this publication identifies important influences – psychological, economic, political, social, cultural, and media-related – on how science related to such issues is understood, perceived, and used.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!