IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/anname/v658y2015i1p136-154.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Expertise in an Age of Polarization

Author

Listed:
  • Matthew C. Nisbet
  • Ezra M. Markowitz

Abstract

During the George W. Bush administration, intense debate focused on the administration’s interference with the work of government scientists. In this study, analyzing a May/June 2009 survey of members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), we evaluate the factors during this period that influenced scientists’ awareness of political interference and their media outreach and communication activities. Controlling for demographic and professional-level influences, those members who were more liberal in their political outlook, who were frequent blog readers, and who felt strongly about global warming were substantially more likely to have heard “a lot†about political interference. However, neither ideology, partisanship, nor opinion-intensity were predictive of the various media and communication behaviors assessed. Instead, the strongest predictor was the belief that media coverage was important for an individual’s career advancement. Implications for evaluating the expert community’s participation in future political debates are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Matthew C. Nisbet & Ezra M. Markowitz, 2015. "Expertise in an Age of Polarization," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 658(1), pages 136-154, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:136-154
    DOI: 10.1177/0002716214559699
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0002716214559699
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0002716214559699?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan M. Kahan & Ellen Peters & Maggie Wittlin & Paul Slovic & Lisa Larrimore Ouellette & Donald Braman & Gregory Mandel, 2012. "The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks," Nature Climate Change, Nature, vol. 2(10), pages 732-735, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Casey A. Klofstad & Joseph E. Uscinski & Jennifer M. Connolly & Jonathan P. West, 2019. "What drives people to believe in Zika conspiracy theories?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-8, December.
    2. Michel, Hanno, 2020. "From local to global: The role of knowledge, transfer, and capacity building for successful energy transitions," Discussion Papers, Research Group Digital Mobility and Social Differentiation SP III 2020-603, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
    3. Branden B. Johnson, 2017. "Explaining Americans’ responses to dread epidemics: an illustration with Ebola in late 2014," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 20(10), pages 1338-1357, October.
    4. Morrison, Mark & Duncan, Roderick & Parton, Kevin A., 2013. "Targeting segments in the Australian community to increase support for climate change policy," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 212-217.
    5. Anthony Evans & Willem Sleegers & Žan Mlakar, 2020. "Individual differences in receptivity to scientific bullshit," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 15(3), pages 401-412, May.
    6. Guillaume Peterson St-Laurent & Shannon Hagerman & Robert Kozak, 2018. "What risks matter? Public views about assisted migration and other climate-adaptive reforestation strategies," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 573-587, December.
    7. Frisch, L.C. & Mathis, J.T. & Kettle, N.P. & Trainor, S.F., 2015. "Gauging perceptions of ocean acidification in Alaska," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 101-110.
    8. Leung, Benson Tsz Kin, 2020. "Limited cognitive ability and selective information processing," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 345-369.
    9. Beatriz Barros & Ana Fernández-Zubieta & Raul Fidalgo-Merino & Francisco Triguero, 2018. "Scientific knowledge percolation process and social impact: A case study on the biotechnology and microbiology perceptions on Twitter," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 45(6), pages 804-814.
    10. Donatella Baiardi, 2021. "What do you think about climate change?," Working Papers 477, University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Economics, revised Aug 2021.
    11. Chad M. Baum & Christian Gross, 2017. "Sustainability policy as if people mattered: developing a framework for environmentally significant behavioral change," Journal of Bioeconomics, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 53-95, April.
    12. Heinz Welsch, 2022. "What shapes cognitions of climate change in Europe? Ideology, morality, and the role of educational attainment," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(2), pages 386-395, June.
    13. Allison Joy Bailey & Caitlin M. Wills & Jamie Mitchem, 2022. "Attitudes towards climate change and scientific stories," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 12(4), pages 714-726, December.
    14. Joel Day & Scott Kleinmann, 2017. "Combating the Cult of ISIS: A Social Approach to Countering Violent Extremism," The Review of Faith & International Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 15(3), pages 14-23, July.
    15. Juliette N. Rooney-Varga & Florian Kapmeier & John D. Sterman & Andrew P. Jones & Michele Putko & Kenneth Rath, 2020. "The Climate Action Simulation," Simulation & Gaming, , vol. 51(2), pages 114-140, April.
    16. Trawöger, Lisa, 2014. "Convinced, ambivalent or annoyed: Tyrolean ski tourism stakeholders and their perceptions of climate change," Tourism Management, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 338-351.
    17. Naoko Kato-Nitta & Tadahiko Maeda & Yusuke Inagaki & Masashi Tachikawa, 2019. "Expert and public perceptions of gene-edited crops: attitude changes in relation to scientific knowledge," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 5(1), pages 1-14, December.
    18. Adelle Thomas & Lisa Benjamin, 2018. "Perceptions of climate change risk in The Bahamas," Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, Springer;Association of Environmental Studies and Sciences, vol. 8(1), pages 63-72, March.
    19. Baiardi, Donatella & Morana, Claudio, 2021. "Climate change awareness: Empirical evidence for the European Union," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    20. Tol, Richard S.J., 2017. "The structure of the climate debate," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 431-438.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:anname:v:658:y:2015:i:1:p:136-154. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.