Part I. Experimental Studies: 2. Experiment in psychology 3. Experiments on perceiving III Experiments on imaging 4-8. Experiments on remembering: (a) The method of description (b) The method of repeated reproduction (c) The method of picture writing (d) The method of serial reproduction (e) The method of serial reproduction picture material 9. Perceiving, recognizing, remembering 10. A theory of remembering 11. Images and their functions 12. Meaning Part II. Remembering as a Study in Social Psychology: 13. Social psychology 14. Social psychology and the matter of recall 15. Social psychology and the manner of recall 16. Conventionalism 17. The notion of a collective unconscious 18. The basis of social recall 19. A summary and some conclusions.

Remembering. A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology, Cambridge (University Press) 1964.

Individuals are increasingly turning to online environments to find information about science and to follow scientific developments. It is therefore crucial for scientists and scientific institutions to consider empirical findings from research in online science communication when thinking about science in the public sphere. After providing a snapshot of the current media landscape, this paper reviews recent major research findings related to science communication in the online environment and their implications for science in the 21st century. Particular emphasis is given to the bias introduced by search engines, the nature of scientific content encountered online, and the potential impact of the Internet on audiences’ knowledge and attitudes toward science.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/Supplement_3/14096.full.pdf

New media landscapes and the science information consumer.

This study tests whether the number (1 vs. 2) and the source (another user vs. the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC]) of corrective responses affect successful reduction of mispercep...

Using Expert Sources to Correct Health Misinformation in Social Media

The present article presents an up-to-date account of the current media relations of scientists, based on a comprehensive analysis of relevant surveys. The evidence suggests that most scientists consider visibility in the media important and responding to journalists a professional duty—an attitude that is reinforced by universities and other science organizations. Scientific communities continue to regulate media contacts with their members by certain norms that compete with the motivating and regulating influences of public information departments. Most scientists assume a two-arena model with a gap between the arenas of internal scientific and public communication. They want to meet the public in the public arena, not in the arena of internal scientific communication. Despite obvious changes in science and in the media system, the orientations of scientists toward the media, as well as the patterns of interaction with journalists, have their roots in the early 1980s. Although there is more influence on public communication from the science organizations and more emphasis on strategic considerations today, the available data do not indicate abrupt changes in communication practices or in the relevant beliefs and attitudes of scientists in the past 30 y. Changes in the science–media interface may be expected from the ongoing structural transformation of the public communication system. However, as yet, there is little evidence of an erosion of the dominant orientation toward the public and public communication within the younger generation of scientists.

https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/110/Supplement_3/14102.full.pdf

Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/early/2008/11/17/1940161208326436.full.pdf

Communication in China: Political Economy, Power, and Conflict

The communication between scientists and the public is changing. Major drivers of this change are the rapid evolution of the Internet, now in its web 2.0 version with an abundance of video‐sharing websites, blogging platforms and social networks; the ubiquity of mobile devices; and the merging of individual and public communication. The new infrastructures allow nearly instantaneous access to information and make it much easier for communicators—both professionals and laypersons—to directly address a broad audience. Web‐based services have broken down technical and economic barriers that, in the traditional communication system, have separated professional communicators from the largely passive audience of traditional print and broadcast media. This interactivity among the participants of online communication potentially transcends the traditional model of mass communication—by which the information is transmitted from a sender, that is, the scientists, via journalists to the audience. Here, we discuss what the new media may hold in store for scientists and their efforts to communicate with different publics.

Not all forms of online communication are conceptually different from traditional media, though. For the typical news consumer, the difference between reading the print edition of a newspaper or accessing it online may be trivial. They may derive some added value from other readers' responses or from information about how often an article was shared by Twitter or Facebook, but these are rather secondary aspects. It seems that the traditional media, such as newspapers and magazines, are easily integrated into the Internet: their content is frequently referenced in blogs, shared in social networks, included in so‐called news aggregators, such as Google News, and turns up in search results. In addition, traditional media increasingly provide additional content online, notably multimedia content, and link to further information and interactivity, notably reader comments. Click rates, shares and other response measures provide instant feedback to …

Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the "new media" online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?

The online video-sharing website YouTube is extremely popular globally, also as a tool for information on science and environmental topics. However, only little is known about what kind of information users find when they are searching for information about climate science, climate change and climate engineering on YouTube. This contribution presents results from an exploratory research project that investigates whether videos found on YouTube adhere to or challenge scientific consensus views. Ten search terms were employed to search for and analyze 200 videos about climate and climate modification topics, which are contested topics in online media. The online anonymization tool Tor has been used for the randomization of the sample and to avoid personalization of the results. A heuristic qualitative classification tool was set up to categorize the videos in the sample. 89 videos of the 200 videos in the sample are supporting scientific consensus views about anthropogenic climate change, and climate scientists are discussing climate topics with deniers of climate change in 4 videos in the sample. Unexpectedly, the majority of the videos in the sample (107 videos) supports worldviews that are opposing scientific consensus views: 16 videos deny climate change and 91 videos in the sample propagate straightforward conspiracy theories about climate engineering and climate change. Videos supporting the scientific mainstream view received only slightly more views (16,941,949 views in total) than those opposing the mainstream scientific position (16,939,655 views in total). Consequences for the public communication of climate change and climate engineering are discussed in the second part of the article. The research presented in this contribution is particularly interested in finding out more about strategically distorted communications about climate change and climate engineering in online environments and in critically analyzing them.

/pdf/science-and-environmental-communication-on-youtube-26oz3x254t.pdf

Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube : Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering

The transformation of today's mass media system leads to uncertainty about communication behaviors concerning scientific issues. So far, few researchers have investigated this issue among scientists. We conducted a survey of neuroscientists in Germany and the United States in which we asked them about their own information-seeking behaviors and their assessment of the influence of various types of “old” and “new” media on public opinion and political decisionmaking. Our findings suggest that neuroscientists continue to use traditional journalistic media more often than blogs and social networks for information seeking but perceive all of these channels to have a strong influence on public opinion and political decisionmaking processes.

/pdf/journalism-and-social-media-as-means-of-observing-the-19f1j7b00r.pdf

Journalism and Social Media as Means of Observing the Contexts of Science

The communication aspects of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Western Africa – do we need to counter one, two, or many epidemics?

Joachim Allgaier

Papers

Public communication of science 2.0: Is the communication of science via the "new media" online a genuine transformation or old wine in new bottles?

Science and Environmental Communication on YouTube : Strategically Distorted Communications in Online Videos on Climate Change and Climate Engineering

Journalism and Social Media as Means of Observing the Contexts of Science

The communication aspects of the Ebola virus disease outbreak in Western Africa--do we need to counter one, two, or many epidemics?

Science and Medicine on YouTube