Showing papers by "Dietram A. Scheufele published in 2023"
TL;DR: The authors argue that attempts to "cure" public opinion that are inconsistent with best available social science evidence not only leave the scientific community vulnerable to long-term reputational damage but also raise significant ethical questions.
Abstract: A growing chorus of academicians, public health officials, and other science communicators have warned of what they see as an ill-informed public making poor personal or electoral decisions. Misinformation is often seen as an urgent new problem, so some members of these communities have pushed for quick but untested solutions without carefully diagnosing ethical pitfalls of rushed interventions. This article argues that attempts to "cure" public opinion that are inconsistent with best available social science evidence not only leave the scientific community vulnerable to long-term reputational damage but also raise significant ethical questions. It also suggests strategies for communicating science and health information equitably, effectively, and ethically to audiences affected by it without undermining affected audiences' agency over what to do with it.
5 citations
TL;DR: In this article , the authors connect different disciplinary strands of social science to derive and experimentally test the novel hypothesis that although particular efforts to debunk misinformation about mRNA vaccines will reduce relevant misperceptions about that technology, these correctives will harm attitudes toward other types of vaccines.
1 citations
TL;DR: This article examined how synthetic biology experts' perceptions of risks, benefits, and ambivalence for synthetic biology relate to views of lay publics, deference to scientific authority, and regulations.
Abstract: Scientific experts can play an important role in decision-making surrounding policy for technical and value-laden issues, often in contexts that directly affect lay publics. Yet little is known about what characterizes scientific experts who want lay public involvement in decision-making. In this study, we examine how synthetic biology experts' perceptions of risks, benefits, and ambivalence for synthetic biology relate to views of lay publics, deference to scientific authority, and regulations. We analyzed survey data of researchers in the United States, who published academic articles relating to synthetic biology from 2000 to 2015. Scientific experts who see less risk and are more deferent to scientific authority appear to favor a more closed system in which regulations are sufficient, citizens should not be involved, and scientists know best. Conversely, scientific experts who see more potential for risk and see the public as bringing a valuable perspective appear to favor a more open, inclusive system.
TL;DR: This paper found that attention to science fiction is associated with both risk and benefit perception of the technology, and that, at higher levels of attention, the levels of concern from conservatives and from liberals (normally predisposed to positive views toward science) come closer to being the same.
Abstract: This research addresses the association between attention to science fiction and public opinion of human genome editing (HGE). Using a nationally representative survey, our results show that attention to science fiction is associated with both risk and benefit perception of the technology. In addition, results show that, at higher levels of attention to science fiction, the levels of concern from conservatives (ordinarily predisposed to negative views toward science) and from liberals (ordinarily predisposed to positive views toward science) come closer to being the same. This research contributes to our understanding of debates about controversial science.
TL;DR: The authors investigated whether news media can improve diverse political listening in the United States via a reduction in party cue salience, finding that participants showed a strong preference for listening to speeches given by Republican politicians when party cues were highly salient, while this bias in selective political listening was reduced or even absent when news items provided no or only low-salience cues.
Abstract:
Recent theorizing on deliberative democracy has put political listening at the core of meaningful democratic deliberation. In the present experiment (N = 827), we investigated whether news media can improve diverse political listening in the United States via a reduction in party cue salience. Although Republican (Democratic) participants showed a strong preference for listening to speeches given by Republican (Democratic) politicians when party cues were highly salient, this bias in selective political listening was reduced or even absent when news items provided no or only low-salience cues. Conditional process analysis indicated that (automatically activated) implicit and (overtly expressed) explicit party attitudes mediated this effect. There are important implications: Current journalism practices tend to exacerbate tribal us-vs-them thinking by emphasizing partisan cues, nudging citizens toward not listening to political ideas from the other political camp. A more helpful news-choice architecture tones down partisan language, nudging citizens toward more diverse political listening.