User comments on climate stories: impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence

Hinnant, Amanda; Subramanian, Roma; Young, Rachel

doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1759-1

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Nevertheless, empirical studies on credibility in climate change communication typically summarizes statements of a source's credibility (e.g Egeru 2016;Gallford et al 2016), and explore relationships between the various variables such as cultural and political Values (Carlton et al 2015;Hinnant et al 2016). This study contributes with knowledge on underlying views on what constitutes a credible information landscape, from an audience point of view.…”

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies, including this, has identified the natural scientific prevalence of climate change communication as problematic (Hinnant et al 2016;Ingram et al 2017;White et al 2015). As the credibility of climate change information is partly judged by how knowledge of climate change is produced the very concept of climate change is embedded with challenges.…”

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scientific knowledge claims tend to be theoretically and analytically derived and perceived of as unable to render reliable and accurate predictions (White et al 2015). Furthermore, studies on audiences' different requirements for evidence show that some actors need scientific validation while others rely on experiential knowledge in making sense of climate change and its effects (Bromme et al 2015;Hinnant et al 2016;Ingram et al 2017;McCrudden et al 2016).…”

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Communicating Climate Science: A Matter of Credibility—Swedish Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate-Change Information

Asplund¹

2018

The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Respon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Credibility Of Information Sourcesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Communicating Climate Science: A Matter of Credibility—Swedish Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate-Change Information

Asplund¹

2018

The International Journal of Climate Change: Impacts and Respon

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Individuals who are convinced that a source has accurate information and can be trusted to deliver the truth are more likely to consider that information when developing attitudinal dispositions. While some aspects of comments, such as narrative structure (Hinnant et al, 2016) and political extremism (Warner, 2010), are known, other factors likely exist. For example, the literature about online civility suggests that the tone of comments from readers and viewers can impact the credibility of a source (Hinnant et al, 2016).…”

Section: Source Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Civility, credibility, and health information: The impact of uncivil comments and source credibility on attitudes about vaccines

Jennings

Russell

2019

Public Underst Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As individuals turn to social media sites for health information, it is important to understand the factors that influence their perceptions of this information. This study employed an experiment to investigate the impact of social media discussion on perceptions of vaccines. Analysis, using structural equation modeling, revealed that source credibility and the civility of a discussion indirectly influence policy support requiring vaccinations, intention to vaccinate future children, and willingness to engage in discussion about vaccines. This impact is mediated by message elaboration and attitudes of the value of vaccinations. As individuals think about a pro-vaccine message and understand the importance of receiving vaccinations, they are more likely to engage in pro-social vaccination choices.

show abstract

“…The social environment, unsurprisingly, also influences human behavior. With respect to science communication, comments from other receivers influence one's perception of the validity of scientific findings (Hinnant et al, 2016). In a study that explored the effects of blog comments, for example, researchers found that uncivil comments led to polarization of the perception of riskan effect that interacted with a receiver's level of religiosity (Anderson et al, 2014).…”

Section: Science Communicationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using cross-disciplinary knowledge to facilitate advancements in animal communication and science communication research

Hebets

Anderson

2018

J Exp Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although humans may have more nuanced reasons for communicatinge.g. to teach or inform, to share or change opinions or attitudesall animals engage in communication with members of their own as well as other species, and there are more similarities than differences between non-human and human communication. All communication systems are composed of the same basic elements and all face comparable challenges. In this Commentary, we explore the extent to which research investigating how non-human animals communicate with each other (animal communication) overlaps in questions and approaches with research focused on how humans communicate with each other. We place a special focus on human communication involving scientific content, i.e. science communication. We begin with a brief review of the fields of animal communication and science communication. We next synthesize literature from each field to examine the roles, impacts and potential interactions of communication system elementssignaling environments, signalers, signal form and receiverson effective communication. We find that research examining animal and human communication, including science communication, often has different emphases. Animal communication research, for example, tends to focus more on the role of the signaling environment through quantification of receiver responses. In contrast, science communication research currently emphasizes relationship building between signalers and receivers, and quantifies aspects of the receiver's psychology. Informed by our cross-disciplinary assessment, we propose potentially productive avenues of future research in both animal communication and science communication.

show abstract

User comments on climate stories: impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence

Cited by 16 publications

References 72 publications

Communicating Climate Science: A Matter of Credibility—Swedish Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate-Change Information

Communicating Climate Science: A Matter of Credibility—Swedish Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate-Change Information

Civility, credibility, and health information: The impact of uncivil comments and source credibility on attitudes about vaccines

Using cross-disciplinary knowledge to facilitate advancements in animal communication and science communication research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About