Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday June 22, @01:46PM   Printer-friendly
from the if-you-change-your-mind-I'm-the-first-in-line dept.

https://phys.org/news/2022-06-science-coverage-climate-mindsbriefly.html

Science reporting on climate change does lead Americans to adopt more accurate beliefs and support government action on the issue—but these gains are fragile, a new study suggests.

Researchers found that these accurate beliefs fade quickly and can erode when people are exposed to coverage skeptical of climate change.

"It is not the case that the American public does not respond to scientifically informed reporting when they are exposed to it," said Thomas Wood, associate professor of political science at The Ohio State University.

"But even factually accurate science reporting recedes from people's frame of reference very quickly."

"Not only did science reporting change people's factual understanding, it also moved their political preferences," he said. "It made them think that climate change was a pressing government concern that government should do more about."

[...] Overall, the results suggest that the media play a key role in Americans' beliefs and attitudes about scientific issues like climate change.

"It was striking to us how amenable the subjects in our study were to what they read about climate change in our study. But what they learned faded very quickly," Wood said. The results of the study conflict with the media imperative to only report on what is new.

More information: Time and skeptical opinion content erode the effects of science coverage on climate beliefs and attitudes, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2022). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2122069119.

 

Reply to: Disambiguation

    (Score: 2) by gznork26 on Wednesday June 22, @03:35PM

    by gznork26 (1159) on Wednesday June 22, @03:35PM (#1255378) Homepage

    I wonder how this shakes out if you filter for what sort of background the respondents bring to the table. In the extreme, that would isolate those whose education included more than the required minimum exposure to science, and those that didn't. My thought here was whether the stickiness of the change was affected by whether there was a mental structure on which to hang it. In other words, unless the new info could be attached to a body of knowledge, it wouldn't have much staying power. This works both ways, of course, so a new conspiracy theory would be sticky if it was in some way consistent with those the person already subscribed to.

Post Comment

Edit Comment You are not logged in. You can log in now using the convenient form below, or Create an Account, or post as Anonymous Coward.

Public Terminal

Anonymous Coward [ Create an Account ]

Use the Preview Button! Check those URLs!


Score: 0 (Logged-in users start at Score: 1). Create an Account!

Allowed HTML
<b i p br a ol ul li dl dt dd em strong tt blockquote div ecode quote sup sub abbr sarc sarcasm user spoiler del>

URLs
will auto-link a URL

Important Stuff

  • Please try to keep posts on topic.
  • Try to reply to other people's comments instead of starting new threads.
  • Read other people's messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said.
  • Use a clear subject that describes what your message is about.
  • Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be moderated. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the User Preferences Page)
  • If you want replies to your comments sent to you, consider logging in or creating an account.

If you are having a problem with accounts or comment posting, please yell for help.