There has been deepening concern about political polarization in public attitudes toward the scientific community. The “intrinsic thesis” attributes this polarization to psychological deficiencies among conservatives as compared to liberals. The “contextual thesis” makes no such claims about inherent psychological differences between conservatives and liberals, but rather points to interacting institutional and psychological factors as the forces driving polarization. We evaluate the evidence for both theses in the context of developing and testing a theoretical model of audience response to dissonant science communication. Conducting a national online experiment ( N = 1,500), we examined audience reactions to both conservative-dissonant and liberal-dissonant science messages and consequences for trust in the scientific community. Our results suggest liberals and conservatives alike react negatively to dissonant science communication, resulting in diminished trust of the scientific community. We discuss how our findings link to the larger debate about political polarization of science and implications for science communicators.

How do people develop and maintain their beliefs about science? Decades of social science research exist to help us answer this question. The Integrated Model of Communication Influence on Beliefs presented here combines multiple theories that have considered aspects of this process into a comprehensive model to explain how individuals arrive at their scientific beliefs. In this article, we (i) summarize what is known about how science is presented in various news and entertainment media forms; (ii) describe how individuals differ in their choices to be exposed to various forms and sources of communication; (iii) discuss the implications of how individuals mentally process information on the effects of communication; (iv) consider how communication effects can be altered depending on background characteristics and motivations of individuals; and (v) emphasize that the process of belief formation is not unidirectional but rather, feeds back on itself over time. We conclude by applying the Integrated Model of Communication Influence on Beliefs to the complex issue of beliefs about climate change.knowledge | learning D ecades of scholarship in communication and related fields have examined the role of mass and interpersonal communication as means by which members of the public acquire information or beliefs about a variety of important topics (1, 2). However, there are several properties of this literature that make it less than ideal for succinctly answering the larger question of how scientific beliefs are formed. First, there is a tendency to focus research on a particular form of communication in isolation from others (e.g., news rather than entertainment or media rather than interpersonal discussion), with an emphasis on media effects. Second, most empirical models offer snapshots of associations among variables (3, 4) rather than consideration of how feedback processes connect communication and beliefs in both causal directions. Third, the models tested often seem to have been developed on the basis of the data available in a particular study rather than on a broader consideration of the theoretical processes involved. In those cases in which the models do seem more comprehensive, they usually eschew formal prediction in favor of offering more abstract frameworks and encouraging data exploration (5). Overall, although there is a wealth of insight and evidence relating communication and beliefs, it tends to be scattered because of emphasis on particular subprocesses rather than emphasis on the whole.Sociologist Robert Merton [ref. 6, pp. 52-53 (emphasis in original)] argued that "theories of the middle range hold the largest promise, provided that the search for them is coupled with a pervasive concern with consolidating special theories into more general sets of concepts and mutually consistent propositions" (6). The current body of research on media selection and impact on beliefs, which has, to date, been relatively circumscribed by focusing attention on subprocesses, would seem to be ripe for a comprehens...

Does the relationship between media use and learning about climate change depend more on audiences' scientific literacy on their ideological biases? To answer this question, we evaluate both the knowledge gap and belief gap hypotheses as they relate to climate change. Results indicate belief gaps for news and entertainment content and a knowledge gap for edutainment content. Climate change knowledge among conservatives decreased with greater attention to political news, but increased with greater attention to science news. TV entertainment was associated with a significant decrease in knowledge about climate change among liberals to similar levels as conservatives. Edutainment was associated with a widening gap in knowledge based on respondents' scientific literacy. Implications for informal learning about controversial science through the media are discussed.

This study examined the relationships between narrative involvement, affect, risk perceptions, and environmental policy preferences. Experiment 1 involved a 3 (news, documentary, entertainment) × 2 (hydraulic fracturing, genetically modified organisms) mixed between- and within-subjects experiment. Results indicated a serial mediation model in which narrative involvement increased the likelihood of a negative affective response, in turn increasing risk perceptions and policy preferences for stricter regulation of environmental hazards. In Experiment 2, the pathway was tested for positively valenced content. Narrative involvement with positively valenced media produced a significantly lower negative affective response than negatively valenced media, but no difference terms of positive affect.

The broad instrumental philanthropy movement advocates for considerations of cost‐effective impact in donation decisions. Within that broader movement, the effective altruism movement goes as far as to advocate for cause neutrality and geographic neutrality when prioritizing cost‐effectiveness in charity. We present a survey experiment that examined how information about cost‐effectiveness, cause area preferences, and geographic preferences interact to affect philanthropic giving. The experiment varied these three dimensions in a hypothetical giving situation and found that cost‐effectiveness information had the strongest influence on hypothetical giving. Participants gave most when presented with charities that were shown to be highly cost‐effective, local/domestic, and that matched their preferred cause area. Understanding how these three considerations interact to affect donors is important as donors continue to desire more information about the cost‐effective impact of their donation.