Cultivating the Science Internet Audience

Abstract

Keywords: science communication; Internet credibility; domain credibilityThe popularity of the Internet has challenged many core assumptions about relationships between sources, mass media, and audiences in many areas of Authors' Note: The authors would like to thank Ron Koczor and Science@NASA, Marshall Space Flight Center for their support and cooperation in this project. Address correspondence to Debbie Treise, University of Florida, College of Journalism and Communications, 2084 Weimer Hall, Gainesville, FL 32611; phone: 352-392-9755; fax: 352-846-3015; e-mail: dtreise@ jou.ufl.edu. Science Communication, Vol. 24 No. 3, March 2003 309-332 DOI: 10.1177/1075547002250298 © 2003 communication but perhaps most dramatically in the area of science communication (Weigold 2002). Traditionally, the cost and complexity of producing any mass-mediated product limited the numbers of information-producing people and organizations an audience member would be exposed to, thereby not only limiting the range of choices consumers have in terms of information providers but also increasing the likelihood that those providing information would have a substantial investment in ensuring its accuracy. However, because of the ease and cost effectiveness with which information can be posted on the Web, the number of sites has exploded over the past ten years. One well-known source of science information recently suggested that there are now 550 billion unique documents on the Web, with approximately 7 million pages being added daily (Popular Science 2001).For consumers of science information, the Web presents both opportunities and challenges. By entering terms into a search engine, consumers may quickly discover that there are hundreds or even thousands of sites that offer science information with the click of a mouse. Knowing which of the many sites available contains information high in quality, currency, and accuracy is a much greater challenge. Because anyone can post information on the Web, finding science information that is useful, accurate, and current may be difficult (Hartz and Chappell 1997). The explosion of information about science on the Web may pose a challenge for sites as well. It may be difficult for quality sites to distinguish themselves from competitors offering information of lower quality or veracity.This study focuses on a common currency for sources and audiences of science information: credibility. The primary purpose of this study is to determine the effects of a prestigious versus generic source and a .gov versus .com domain on perceptions of the credibility of an online source and a science story. The credibility of online science is largely unexplored, as opposed to other areas, such as health information, that have received much attention (Weigold 2002). Although nongovernment organizations do not have the option of using the .gov domain, governmental organizations do have the option of changing their Web addresses to use a .com extension. Such a change might be attractive to some government-spons...

Is it believable when it's scientific? How scientific discourse style influences laypeople's resolution of conflicts

“…Our findings for persuasiveness are consistent with the findings by Thomm and Bromme (2012) for single, uncontroversial texts. Hence, they add to the existing literature on the persuasiveness of scientific information by confirming that genre-typical discourse features belong to the group of factors that act as persuasive evidence (e.g., Rabinovich et al, 2012;Scharrer et al, 2012;Treise et al, 2003). Moreover, the present results extend Thomm and Bromme's (2012) findings by showing that readers also draw on genre-typical discourse features to resolve intertextual controversy.…”

The influence of structural and message features on Web site credibility

“…In contrast, other studies pertain to specific content such as online news (Sundar, 1998), science information (Treise et al, 2003), e-commerce (Palmer et al, 2000), and politics (Johnson & Kaye, 1998, 2000. Although other studies do not examine message attributes like those in the current study, their findings suggest that perceived credibility may be highly contingent on content.…”

“…Web site structural features that have been found to contribute to perceptions of credibility include top-level domain name, navigation tools, presence of a privacy policy statement, third-party endorsements, site ownership, site contact information, and, specific to health-related Web sites, inclusion in the Health on the Net Network (HON network). In terms of domain names, sites with the .edu, .org, and .gov top-level domain names (Rieh & Belkin, 1998;Treise, Walsh-Childers, Weigold, & Friedman, 2003) are perceived to be more credible than .com sites. These findings suggest that top-level domain names connoting institution-affiliated organizations are perceived to be more credible than commercial sites.…”

Communicating data: interactive infographics, scientific data and credibility

“…Results showed that consumers found the USDA label more trustworthy than the corporate label, and developed more favorable attitude toward the USDA-labeled product. Similarly, participants were more inclined to believe a science story from an .edu site (indicating a website from a higher education institution), than a .gov site (indicating a government website) [Treise et al, 2003].…”