The influence of weight-of-evidence strategies on audience perceptions of (un)certainty when media cover contested science

Abstract

Controversy in science news accounts attracts audiences and draws attention to important science issues. But sometimes covering multiple sides of a science issue does the audience a disservice. Counterbalancing a truth claim backed by strong scientific support with a poorly backed argument can unnecessarily heighten audience perceptions of uncertainty. At the same time, journalistic norms often constrain reporters to "get both sides of the story" even when there is little debate in the scientific community about which truth claim is most valid. In this study, we look at whether highlighting the way in which experts are arrayed across truth claims-a strategy we label "weight-of-evidence reporting"-can attenuate heightened perceptions of uncertainty that can result from coverage of conflicting claims. The results of our study suggest weight-of-evidence strategies can indeed play a role in reducing some of the uncertainty audiences may perceive when encountering lop-sided truth claims.

Weight-of-Evidence Strategies to Mitigate the Influence of Messages of Science Denialism in Public Discussions

“…An alternative to falsely balanced discussions, which potentially can alter the environment in favour of evidence-based perspectives, is weight-of-evidence reporting ( Dunwoody, 2005 ; Kohl et al, 2016 ). A weight-of-evidence strategy ‘calls on journalists not to determine what’s true, but instead to find out where the bulk of evidence and expert thought lies on the truth continuum and then communicate that to the audiences’ ( Dunwoody, 2005, p. 90 ).…”

“…A weight-of-evidence strategy ‘calls on journalists not to determine what’s true, but instead to find out where the bulk of evidence and expert thought lies on the truth continuum and then communicate that to the audiences’ ( Dunwoody, 2005, p. 90 ). Thus, weight-of-evidence strategies neither overestimate positions that are backed up with little evidence, nor do they neglect the existence of contrasting positions ( Kohl et al, 2016 ). Instead, weight-of-evidence strategies provide each position in a public discussion with a weight corresponding to the amount of evidence that supports the position.…”

“…Instead, weight-of-evidence strategies provide each position in a public discussion with a weight corresponding to the amount of evidence that supports the position. Previous research shows that weight-of-evidence strategies in newspaper articles can mitigate damage to the audience’s attitudinal beliefs from misleading reports ( Clarke, Dixon, Holton & McKeever, 2015 ; Clarke, McKeever, et al, 2015 ; Kohl et al, 2016 ). Given these promising findings, it is now necessary to explore how weight-of-evidence strategies can be best applied in public discussions about science.…”

“…Scientific evidence thus stands one-on-one with personal opinions, statistical numbers next to emotional narratives ( Livingstone & Lunt, 1994 ). To avoid potential damage to audiences from such falsely balanced public discussions ( Dixon & Clarke, 2013 ), journalists either could refrain from broadcasting them or alter the environment in favour of evidence-based perspectives in discussions ( Clarke, McKeever, Holton & Dixon, 2015 ; Dunwoody, 2005 ; Kohl et al, 2016 ). Here, we focus on the latter because we argue that the issue of false balance is not rooted in the very existence of an unscientific perspective, but in the inappropriate weight that this perspective receives in mass media ( Boudana, 2016 ; Dearing, 1995 ).…”

The Impact of Perceived Scientific and Social Consensus on Scientific Beliefs

“…Recent research has shown that people's perceptions of scientific consensus-the extent to which scientists agree on a scientific issue-predict and influence their beliefs about the issue (Cook & Lewandowsky, 2016;Ding, Maibach, Zhao, Roser-Renouf, & Leiserowitz, 2011;Dixon & Clarke, 2013;Dunwoody & Kohl, 2017;Kohl et al, 2016;Lewandowsky, Gignac, & Vaughan, 2013;McCright, Dunlap, & Xiao, 2013;van der Linden, Clarke, & Maibach, 2015;. That is to say, those who estimate greater consensus among scientists on the existence of a scientific phenomenon (e.g., anthropogenic climate change) or causality (e.g., vaccine-autism link) are more likely to accept and be certain about the scientific phenomenon or causality.…”