IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v36y2016i4p831-846.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Conflict or Caveats? Effects of Media Portrayals of Scientific Uncertainty on Audience Perceptions of New Technologies

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew R. Binder
  • Elliott D. Hillback
  • Dominique Brossard

Abstract

Research indicates that uncertainty in science news stories affects public assessment of risk and uncertainty. However, the form in which uncertainty is presented may also affect people's risk and uncertainty assessments. For example, a news story that features an expert discussing both what is known and what is unknown about a topic may convey a different form of scientific uncertainty than a story that features two experts who hold conflicting opinions about the status of scientific knowledge of the topic, even when both stories contain the same information about knowledge and its boundaries. This study focuses on audience uncertainty and risk perceptions regarding the emerging science of nanotechnology by manipulating whether uncertainty in a news story about potential risks is attributed to expert sources in the form of caveats (individual uncertainty) or conflicting viewpoints (collective uncertainty). Results suggest that the type of uncertainty portrayed does not impact audience feelings of uncertainty or risk perceptions directly. Rather, the presentation of the story influences risk perceptions only among those who are highly deferent to scientific authority. Implications for risk communication theory and practice are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew R. Binder & Elliott D. Hillback & Dominique Brossard, 2016. "Conflict or Caveats? Effects of Media Portrayals of Scientific Uncertainty on Audience Perceptions of New Technologies," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 831-846, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:831-846
    DOI: 10.1111/risa.12462
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12462
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/risa.12462?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. Trudy Cameron, 2005. "Updating Subjective Risks in the Presence of Conflicting Information: An Application to Climate Change," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 30(1), pages 63-97, January.
    2. Michael F. Dahlstrom & Anthony Dudo & Dominique Brossard, 2012. "Precision of Information, Sensational Information, and Self‐Efficacy Information as Message‐Level Variables Affecting Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(1), pages 155-166, January.
    3. Viscusi, W Kip, 1997. "Alarmist Decisions with Divergent Risk Information," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 107(445), pages 1657-1670, November.
    4. Smithson, Michael, 1999. "Conflict Aversion: Preference for Ambiguity vs Conflict in Sources and Evidence," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 79(3), pages 179-198, September.
    5. Fox, John A & Hayes, Dermot J & Shogren, Jason F, 2002. "Consumer Preferences for Food Irradiation: How Favorable and Unfavorable Descriptions Affect Preferences for Irradiated Pork in Experimental Auctions," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 24(1), pages 75-95, January.
    6. Roger E. Kasperson & Ortwin Renn & Paul Slovic & Halina S. Brown & Jacque Emel & Robert Goble & Jeanne X. Kasperson & Samuel Ratick, 1988. "The Social Amplification of Risk: A Conceptual Framework," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(2), pages 177-187, June.
    7. W. Kip Viscusi & Wesley A. Magat & Joel Huber, 1999. "Smoking Status and Public Responses to Ambiguous Scientific Risk Evidence," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 66(2), pages 250-270, October.
    8. Susan Miles & Lynn J. Frewer, 2003. "Public perception of scientific uncertainty in relation to food hazards," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 6(3), pages 267-283, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Gea Hoogendoorn & Bernadette Sütterlin & Michael Siegrist, 2021. "Tampering with Nature: A Systematic Review," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 141-156, January.

    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. Laure Cabantous & Denis Hilton & Howard Kunreuther & Erwann Michel-Kerjan, 2011. "Is imprecise knowledge better than conflicting expertise? Evidence from insurers’ decisions in the United States," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 211-232, June.
    2. Aurélien Baillon & Laure Cabantous & Peter Wakker, 2012. "Aggregating imprecise or conflicting beliefs: An experimental investigation using modern ambiguity theories," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 115-147, April.
    3. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Tom Lehman & Bill Killam & Holly Massett & Andrew N. Freedman, 2011. "Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Individualized Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 31(2), pages 354-366, March.
    4. Matthew Rousu & Wallace E. Huffman & Jason F. Shogren & Abebayehu Tegene, 2007. "Effects And Value Of Verifiable Information In A Controversial Market: Evidence From Lab Auctions Of Genetically Modified Food," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(3), pages 409-432, July.
    5. Dickie, Mark & Adamowicz, Wiktor & Gerking, Shelby & Veronesi, Marcella, 2022. "Risk Perception, Learning, and Willingness to Pay to Reduce Heart Disease Risk," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(3), pages 363-382, October.
    6. Michael J. Weir & Thomas W. Sproul, 2019. "Identifying Drivers of Genetically Modified Seafood Demand: Evidence from a Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(14), pages 1-21, July.
    7. Giovanni Abbiati & Davide Azzolini & Anja Balanskat & Katja Engelhart & Daniela Piazzalunga & Enrico Rettore & Patricia Wastiau, 2023. "Effects of an Online Self-Assessment Tool on Teachers’ Digital Competencies," FBK-IRVAPP Working Papers 2023-01, Research Institute for the Evaluation of Public Policies (IRVAPP), Bruno Kessler Foundation.
    8. Kelly, David L. & Letson, David & Nelson, Forrest & Nolan, David S. & Solís, Daniel, 2012. "Evolution of subjective hurricane risk perceptions: A Bayesian approach," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(2), pages 644-663.
    9. Hanna Freudenreich & Sindu W. Kebede, 2022. "Experience of shocks, household wealth and expectation formation: Evidence from smallholder farmers in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 53(5), pages 756-774, September.
    10. Paul K. J. Han & William M. P. Klein & Thomas C. Lehman & Holly Massett & Simon C. Lee & Andrew N. Freedman, 2009. "Laypersons' Responses to the Communication of Uncertainty Regarding Cancer Risk Estimates," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 29(3), pages 391-403, May.
    11. Marion de Vries & Liesbeth Claassen & Marcel Mennen & Aura Timen & Margreet J. M. te Wierik & Danielle R. M. Timmermans, 2019. "Public Perceptions of Contentious Risk: The Case of Rubber Granulate in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-16, June.
    12. Christoph M. Rheinberger & James K. Hammitt, 2018. "Dinner with Bayes: On the revision of risk beliefs," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 57(3), pages 253-280, December.
    13. Jedynak Piotr & Bąk Sylwia, 2020. "Understanding Uncertainty and Risk in Management," Journal of Intercultural Management, Sciendo, vol. 12(1), pages 12-35, March.
    14. Dinah Pura T. Depositario & Rodolfo M. Nayga, Jr. & Ximing Wu & Tiffany P. Laude, 2009. "Effects of Information on Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Golden Rice," Asian Economic Journal, East Asian Economic Association, vol. 23(4), pages 457-476, December.
    15. Uchida, Hirotsugu & Onozaka, Yuko & Morita, Tamaki & Managi, Shunsuke, 2014. "Demand for ecolabeled seafood in the Japanese market: A conjoint analysis of the impact of information and interaction with other labels," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 68-76.
    16. Huffman, Wallace E. & Rousu, Matthew & Shogren, Jason F. & Tegene, Abebayehu, 2007. "The effects of prior beliefs and learning on consumers' acceptance of genetically modified foods," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(1), pages 193-206, May.
    17. Eric Giraud-Héraud & Maria Aguiar Fontes & Alexandra Seabra Pinto, 2014. "Crise sanitaires de l'alimentation et analyses comportementales," Working Papers hal-00949126, HAL.
    18. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    19. Toshio Fujimi & Masahide Watanabe & Ryuji Kakimoto & Hirokazu Tatano, 2016. "Perceived ambiguity about earthquake and house destruction risks," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 80(2), pages 1243-1256, January.
    20. Wakamatsu, Hiroki & Miyata, Tsutomu, 2014. "Do Radioactive Spills from the Fukushima Disaster Have any Influence on Seafood Market in Japan?," MPRA Paper 55667, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 18 Jun 2014.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:wly:riskan:v:36:y:2016:i:4:p:831-846. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    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.