IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01058-y.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes

Author

Listed:
  • Niels G. Mede

    (University of Zurich)

Abstract

Public resentment toward scientific institutions, scholars, and their expertise challenges the status of science in society in many countries worldwide. It is thus essential to examine the global prevalence of such resentment—and the potential of legacy media to temper it, thanks to their ability to cultivate positive views of science, educate citizens, and connect publics to scientific discourse. However, existing research has mostly surveyed Western populations, focused on pro-science rather than anti-science views, rarely studied the role of media use, and often ignored country characteristics that may interact with media use. This secondary analysis addresses these caveats, drawing on the 2017–2020 wave of the World Values Survey (N = 70,867 in 49 countries) and three relevant country-level indicators (freedom of the press, populism, uncertainty avoidance). Findings indicate that anti-science attitudes vary substantially across countries and are more prevalent in many Latin American nations. Results of Bayesian multilevel regressions show that frequent use of newspapers, TV, and radio indeed alleviates anti-science attitudes in some countries—but fosters them in others, particularly in those where populist rhetoric is more prevalent in public discourse, potentially because such rhetoric often challenges science and academic expertise. These findings call for further comparative research on global reservations against science and reflections about their repercussions on the science-society nexus.

Suggested Citation

  • Niels G. Mede, 2022. "Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01058-y
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01058-y
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01058-y
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01058-y?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eric Merkley & Peter John Loewen, 2021. "Anti-intellectualism and the mass public’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(6), pages 706-715, June.
    2. Seoyong Kim & Sang-Ok Choi & Jaesun Wang, 2014. "Individual perception vs. structural context: Searching for multilevel determinants of social acceptance of new science and technology across 34 countries," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(1), pages 44-57.
    3. Dietram A. Scheufele & Nicole M. Krause, 2019. "Science audiences, misinformation, and fake news," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 116(16), pages 7662-7669, April.
    4. Kim, Younghwan & Kim, Minki & Kim, Wonjoon, 2013. "Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 822-828.
    5. Rodrigo Barrenechea & Eduardo Dargent, 2020. "Populists and Technocrats in Latin America: Conflict, Cohabitation, and Cooperation," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(4), pages 509-519.
    6. Michael Freudenberg, 2003. "Composite Indicators of Country Performance: A Critical Assessment," OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers 2003/16, OECD Publishing.
    7. Patrick Sturgis & Ian Brunton-Smith & Jonathan Jackson, 2021. "Trust in science, social consensus and vaccine confidence," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1528-1534, November.
    8. Johnson, Noel D. & Mislin, Alexandra, 2012. "How much should we trust the World Values Survey trust question?," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 116(2), pages 210-212.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eleonora Alabrese & Francesco Capozza & Prashant Garg, 2024. "Politicized Scientists: Credibility Cost of Political Expression on Twitter," CESifo Working Paper Series 11254, CESifo.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gerrath, Maximilian H.E.E. & Olya, Hossein & Shah, Zahra & Li, Huaiyu, 2024. "Virtual influencers and pro-environmental causes: The roles of message warmth and trust in experts," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 175(C).
    2. Haibo Qin & Zhongxuan Xie & Huping Shang & Yong Sun & Xiaohui Yang & Mengming Li, 2024. "The mass public’s science literacy and co-production during the COVID-19 pandemic: empirical evidence from 140 cities in China," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-13, December.
    3. Oliver Nahkur & Dagmar Kutsar & Rein Murakas, 2017. "A Two-Dimensional Two-Layered Societal Index of Interpersonal Destructiveness: Internal Consistency Analysis," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 133(2), pages 431-454, September.
    4. Jaesun Wang & Seoyong Kim, 2018. "Comparative Analysis of Public Attitudes toward Nuclear Power Energy across 27 European Countries by Applying the Multilevel Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-21, May.
    5. Seoyong Kim & Jae Eun Lee & Donggeun Kim, 2019. "Searching for the Next New Energy in Energy Transition: Comparing the Impacts of Economic Incentives on Local Acceptance of Fossil Fuels, Renewable, and Nuclear Energies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(7), pages 1-32, April.
    6. Adam Brzezinski & Valentin Kecht & David Dijcke & Austin L. Wright, 2021. "Science skepticism reduced compliance with COVID-19 shelter-in-place policies in the United States," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 5(11), pages 1519-1527, November.
    7. Engelhardt, Sebastian v. & Freytag, Andreas, 2013. "Institutions, culture, and open source," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 90-110.
    8. Marcus Wiens & Miriam Klein & Frank Schultmann, 2022. "Border Region Attachment: An Empirical Study on Regional Social Capital in the French–German Border Area [Social Capital, Collective Action, and Adaptation to Climate Change]," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 68(4), pages 362-390.
    9. Lam, J. & Cheung, L. & Han, Y. & Wang, S., 2018. "China’s Response to Nuclear Safety Post-Fukushima: Genuine or Rhetoric?," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 1866, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    10. Ljunge, Martin, 2012. "Trust Drives Internet Use," Working Paper Series 947, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    11. Leurent, Martin & Jasserand, Frédéric & Locatelli, Giorgio & Palm, Jenny & Rämä, Miika & Trianni, Andrea, 2017. "Driving forces and obstacles to nuclear cogeneration in Europe: Lessons learnt from Finland," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C), pages 138-150.
    12. Massimo Florio & Francesco Giffoni & Gelsomina Catalano, 2020. "Should governments fund basic science? Evidence from a willingness-to-pay experiment in five universities," Journal of Economic Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 23(1), pages 16-33, January.
    13. Marta de la Cuesta-González & Cristina Ruza & José M. Rodríguez-Fernández, 2020. "Rethinking the Income Inequality and Financial Development Nexus. A Study of Nine OECD Countries," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-18, July.
    14. Schenkel, Marina, 2024. "Health emergencies, science contrarianism and populism: A scoping review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 346(C).
    15. Mikucka, Malgorzata & Sarracino, Francesco & Dubrow, Joshua K., 2017. "When Does Economic Growth Improve Life Satisfaction? Multilevel Analysis of the Roles of Social Trust and Income Inequality in 46 Countries, 1981–2012," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 447-459.
    16. Čábelková, Inna & Strielkowski, Wadim & Streimikiene, Dalia & Cavallaro, Fausto & Streimikis, Justas, 2021. "The social acceptance of nuclear fusion for decision making towards carbon free circular economy: Evidence from Czech Republic," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 163(C).
    17. James N. Druckman, 2022. "Threats to Science: Politicization, Misinformation, and Inequalities," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 700(1), pages 8-24, March.
    18. Xuhao Shao & Ao Li & Chuansheng Chen & Elizabeth F. Loftus & Bi Zhu, 2023. "Cross-stage neural pattern similarity in the hippocampus predicts false memory derived from post-event inaccurate information," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 14(1), pages 1-14, December.
    19. Francesco Sica & Francesco Tajani & Maria Rosaria Guarini & Rossana Ranieri, 2023. "A Sensitivity Index to Perform the Territorial Sustainability in Uncertain Decision-Making Conditions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-21, February.
    20. Truyens, Jasper & De Bosscher, Veerle & Sotiriadou, Popi & Heyndels, Bruno & Westerbeek, Hans, 2016. "A method to evaluate countries’ organisational capacity: A four country comparison in athletics," Sport Management Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 279-292.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01058-y. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.