Learning without seeking?: Incidental exposure to science news on social media & knowledge of gene editing

Abstract

Little is known about how incidental exposure to news, interpersonal discussion, and the diversity of social networks interact in social media environments and for science-related issues. Using a U.S. nationally representative survey, we investigate how these features relate to factual knowledge of gene editing. Incidental exposure to science-related news interacts with interpersonal discussion and network heterogeneity and reveals that the relationship between incidental exposure to news and knowledge is strongest among those who discuss the least. Incidental exposure could alleviate knowledge gaps between the Facebook users who are the most and least involved in interpersonal discussions about science.

CRISPR Images: Media Use and Public Opinion About Gene Editing

“…Each survey included questions measuring attitudes toward three uses of gene editing that recent media messages have highlighted (Annenberg Public Policy Center, 2018; Brewer & Ley, 2021). Respondents in the NORC survey were asked whether they strongly supported (coded as 4), somewhat supported (3), neither supported nor opposed (2), somewhat opposed (1), or strongly opposed (0) “using gene editing to cure diseases in babies before they are born” ( M = 2.69, SD = 1.11), “using gene editing to eliminate the species of mosquitoes that carry diseases” ( M = 2.65, SD = 1.14), and “using gene editing to bring extinct species back to life” ( M = 1.67, SD = 1.25).…”

“…Along with media consumption, a range of other factors may shape support for uses of gene editing. To begin with, interpersonal communication about science and technology can shape knowledge about topics such as gene editing (Anderson et al, 2021) along with attitudes toward biotechnology (Liu & Priest, 2009). In addition, members of the public can use values such as party identification, political ideology, and religious worldviews as heuristics, or information shortcuts, in evaluating issues involving science and technology, including biotechnology (Nisbet, 2005; Ho et al, 2008).…”

“…For example, majorities support using gene editing to treat diseases in babies but oppose using it to make babies more intelligent (Funk & Hefferon, 2018; Funk et al, 2020). Previous studies also suggest that a variety of factors — including political values, religiosity, interpersonal discussion, and demographic factors — can shape public knowledge about and support for uses of gene editing (Anderson et al, 2021; Funk & Hefferon, 2018; Kohl et al, 2019; Nisbet, 2018).…”

“…Given the increasing media attention to CRISPR and other gene editing technologies, media messages could also influence public support for uses of gene editing. Most members of the public rely on the media for information about scientific issues and emerging technologies, including gene editing (Anderson et al, 2021; Marcon et al, 2019; Nisbet, 2018). In keeping with this, previous research has shown that individuals’ media habits can predict their attitudes toward topics such as agricultural biotechnology (Besley & Shanahan, 2005), cloning (Nisbet & Goidel, 2007), and stem cell research (Ho et al, 2008).…”

Do you really know? Incidental exposure to pro- and anti-consensus science information on social media, knowledge overconfidence, and science skepticism

“…Examples comprise texts, pictures, or videos that explain the anthropogenic global warming, the effectiveness of vaccinations, or the safety of genetically modified food. Most exposures to such science contents on social media sites are, however, not planned and intentional but incidental which means that users come across science information when they had different objectives for using social media (Anderson et al, 2021;Huber et al, 2019;Taddicken & Krämer, 2021). Although there is vast evidence that incidental exposure to political content can positively affect people's political knowledge and content engagement (Nanz & Matthes, 2022), there is only scarce evidence whether these effects translate to science content.…”