Effects of Competing Statistical and Testimonial Evidence in Debates About Science

References

• Achterberg, P., de Koster, W., & van der Waal, J. (2017). A science confidence gap: Education, trust in scientific methods, and trust in scientific institutions in the United States, 2014. Public Understanding of Science, 26(6), 704–720. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515617367
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allen, M., & Preiss, R. W. (1997). Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Communication Research Reports, 14(2), 125–131. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824099709388654
   Google Scholar
• Bai, H. (2018). Evidence that A Large Amount of Low Quality Responses on MTurk Can Be Detected with Repeated GPS Coordinates. https://www.maxhuibai.com/blog/evidence-that-responses-from-repeating-gps-are-random%0A.
   Google Scholar
• Bar-Hillel, M. (1980). The base-rate fallacy in probability judgments. Acta Psychologica, 44(3), 211–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(80)90046-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brown, C. P., Propst, S. M., & Woolley, M. (2004). Report: Helping researchers make the case for science. Science Communication, 25(3), 294–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003262599
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conway, B. A., Kenski, K., & Wang, D. (2015). The rise of twitter in the political campaign: Searching for intermedia agenda-setting effects in the presidential primary. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 20(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12124
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cvetkovich, G., & Winter, P. L. (2003). Trust and social representations of the management of threatened and endangered species. Environment and Behavior, 35(2), 286–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013916502250139
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(Supplement_4), 13614–13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454597
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De Wit, J. B. F., Das, E., & Vet, R. (2008). What works best: Objective statistics or a personal testimonial? An assessment of the persuasive effects of different types of message evidence on risk perception. Health Psychology, 27(1), 110–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.27.1.110
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Detenber, B. H., Ho, S. S., Ong, A. H., & Lim, N. W. B. (2018). Complementary versus competitive framing effects in the context of pro-environmental attitudes and behaviors. Science Communication, 40(2), 173–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018758075
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Druckman, J. N., & Lupia, A. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 13–31. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-020614-095051
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement_4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gallup. (2019, March 27). 40 Years After Three Mile Island, Americans Split on Nuclear Power. Gallup.Com. https://news.gallup.com/poll/248048/years-three-mile-island-americans-split-nuclear-power.aspx
   Google Scholar
• Greene, K., & Brinn, L. S. (2003). Messages influencing college women’s tanning bed use: Statistical versus narrative evidence format and a self-assessment to increase perceived susceptibility. Journal of Health Communication, 8(5), 443–461. https://doi.org/10.1080/713852118
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Groshek, J., & Clough Groshek, M. (2013). Agenda Trending: Reciprocity and the Predictive capacity of social Networking Sites in Intermedia agenda setting across topics over Time. Media and Communication, 1, 15–27. https://doi.org/10.12924/mac2013.01010015
   Google Scholar
• 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513482268
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hart, P. S., & Feldman, L. (2018). Would it be better to not talk about climate change? The impact of climate change and air pollution frames on support for regulating power plant emissions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 60, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2018.08.013
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hinnant, A., Subramanian, R., & Young, R. (2016). User comments on climate stories: Impacts of anecdotal vs. Scientific evidence. Climatic Change; Dordrecht, 138(3-4), 411–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1759-1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoeken, H., & Hustinx, L. (2009). When is statistical evidence superior to anecdotal evidence in supporting probability claims? The role of argument type. Human Communication Research, 35(4), 491–510. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2009.01360.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hornikx, J. (2005). A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences, 5, 205–216.
   Google Scholar
• Hunt, K. P., & Wald, D. M. (2020). The role of scientific source credibility and goodwill in public skepticism toward GM foods. Environmental Communication, 14(7), 971–986. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1725086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hovland, C., & Weiss, W. (1951). The influence of source credibility on communication effectiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly, 15, 635–650.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• International Agency for Research on Cancer. (2019). Agents Classified by the IARC Monographs, Volumes 1–124. https://monographs.iarc.fr/agents-classified-by-the-iarc/.
   Google Scholar
• Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011). Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research, 14(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2010.511246
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kata, A. (2012). Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm—An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement. Vaccine, 30(25), 3778–3789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2011.11.112
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohring, M., & Matthes, J. (2007). Trust in news media: Development and validation of a multidimensional scale. Communication Research, 34(2), 231–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650206298071
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landrum, A. R., Hallman, W. K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2019). Examining the impact of expert voices: Communicating the scientific consensus on genetically-modified organisms. Environmental Communication, 13(1), 51–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1502201
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Males, J., & Van Aelst, P. (2020). Did the blue planet set the agenda for plastic pollution? An explorative study on the influence of a documentary on the public, media and political agendas. Environmental Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2020.1780458
   Google Scholar
• McComas, K. A., & Trumbo, C. W. (2001). Source credibility in environmental health - risk controversies: Application of meyer’s credibility index. Risk Analysis, 21(3), 467–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.213126
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, P. (1988). Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. Journalism Quarterly, 65(3), 567–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moyer-Gusé, E., Tchernev, J. M., & Walther-Martin, W. (2019). The persuasiveness of a humorous environmental narrative combined with an explicit persuasive appeal. Science Communication, 41(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547019862553
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mullinix, K. J., Leeper, T. J., Druckman, J. N., & Freese, J. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2(2), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1017/XPS.2015.19
   Google Scholar
• National Science Board. (2016). Science & Engineering Indicators 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Nisbet, E. C., Hart, P. S., Myers, T., & Ellithorpe, M. (2013). Attitude change in competitive framing environments? Open-/closed-mindedness, framing effects, and climate change. Journal of Communication, 63(4), 766–785. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12040
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nurse, M. S., & Grant, W. J. (2020). I’ll see it when i believe it: Motivated numeracy in perceptions of climate change risk. Environmental Communication, 14(2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2019.1618364
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, T. L. (2013). Scientific authority in policy contexts: Public attitudes about environmental scientists, medical researchers, and economists. Public Understanding of Science, 22(7), 799–816. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511435054
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1984). The effects of involvement on responses to argument quantity and quality: Central and peripheral routes to persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(1), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.1.69
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2009). Public praises science; Scientists fault public, Media: Scientific achievements less prominent than a decade ago. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/.
   Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2015). Public and Scientists’ Views on Science and Society. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/.
   Google Scholar
• Pornpitakpan, C. (2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Porter, T. M. (1996). Trust in numbers: The pursuit of objectivity in science and public Life. Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal, S., & Dahlstrom, M. F. (2019). Perceived influence of proenvironmental testimonials. Environmental Communication, 13(2), 222–238. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2017.1287112.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ross, A. S., & Rivers, D. J. (2019). Internet memes, media frames, and the conflicting logics of climate change discourse. Environmental Communication, 13(7), 975–994. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1560347
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shen, L., & Bigsby, E. (2013). The effects of message Features: Content, structure, and Style. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of Persuasion: Developments in theory and practice (pp. 20–35). SAGE Publications Ltd.
   Google Scholar
• Slater, M. D., & Rouner, D. (2002). Entertainment-education and elaboration likelihood: Understanding the processing of narrative Persuasion. Communication Theory, 12, 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2002.tb00265.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sleeth-Keppler, D., Perkowitz, R., & Speiser, M. (2017). It’s a matter of trust: American judgments of the credibility of informal communicators on solutions to climate change. Environmental Communication, 11(1), 17–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2015.1062790
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Slovic, S., & Slovic, P. (2015). Numbers and nerves: Information, emotion, and meaning in a World of data. Oregon State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Spoel, P., Goforth, D., Cheu, H., & Pearson, D. (2008). Public communication of climate change science: Engaging citizens through apocalyptic narrative explanation. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(1), 49–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572250802437382
   Google Scholar
• Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vraga, E. K., Myers, T., Kotcher, J., Beall, L., & Maibach, E. (2018). Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists’ political orientations and credibility. Royal Society Open Science, 5(2), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170505
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wojcieszak, M., & Kim, N. (2016). How to improve attitudes toward disliked groups: The effects of narrative versus numerical evidence on political Persuasion. Communication Research, 43(6), 785–809. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215618480
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wynne, B. (1992). Misunderstood misunderstanding: Social identities and public uptake of science. Public Understanding of Science, 1(3), 281–304. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/1/3/004
   Google Scholar
• Zebregs, S., van den Putte, B., Neijens, P., & de Graaf, A. (2015). The differential impact of statistical and narrative evidence on beliefs, attitude, and intention: A meta-analysis. Health Communication, 30, 282–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Media Psychology, 1(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101
   Google Scholar