- Oxford Library of Psychology
- Oxford Library of Psychology
- About the Editors
- Introduction: Why Science Communication?
- The Need for a Science of Science Communication: Communicating Science’s Values and Norms
- Overview of the Science of Science Communication
- On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance
- How Changing Media Structures Are Affecting Science News Coverage
- What the Public Thinks and Knows About Science—and Why It Matters
- Science Controversies: Can the Science of Science Communication Provide Management Guidance or Only Analysis?
- A Recap: The Science of Communicating Science
- Science as “Broken” Versus Science as “Self-Correcting”: How Retractions and Peer-Review Problems Are Exploited to Attack Science
- Publication Bias in Science: What Is It, Why Is It Problematic, and How Can It Be Addressed?
- Statistical Biases in Science Communication: What We Know About Them and How They Can Be Addressed
- Is There a Hype Problem in Science? If So, How Is It Addressed?
- Is There a Retraction Problem? And, If So, What Can We Do About It?
- A Recap: Identifying and Overcoming Challenges to Science Featured in Attacks on Science
- A Comparative Study of Communication About Food Safety Before, During, and After the “Mad Cow” Crisis
- Cross-National Comparative Communication and Deliberation About the Risks of Nanotechnologies
- Communications About Biotechnologies and GMOs Across Europe
- A Tale of Two Vaccines—and Their Science Communication Environments
- A Recap: Science Communication in Action
- Science Communication at Scientific Institutions
- The Role of Scholarly Presses and Journals
- The Role of Governmental Organizations in Communicating About Regulating Science
- Science Communication and Museums’ Changing Roles
- The Role of Funding Organizations: Foundations
- Promoting Popular Understanding of Science and Health Through Social Networks
- Designing Public Deliberation at the Intersection of Science and Public Policy
- Translating Science into Policy and Legislation: Evidence-Informed Policymaking
- A Recap—The Role of Intermediaries in Communicating Science: A Synthesis
- The (Changing) Nature of Scientist–Media Interactions: A Cross-National Analysis
- New Models of Knowledge-Based Journalism
- Citizens Making Sense of Science Issues: Supply and Demand Factors for Science News and Information in the Digital Age
- The Changing Popular Images of Science
- What Do We Know About the Entertainment Industry’s Portrayal of Science? How Does It Affect Public Attitudes Toward Science?
- How Narrative Functions in Entertainment to Communicate Science
- Assumptions About Science in Satirical News and Late-Night Comedy
- A Recap: The Role, Power, and Peril of Media for the Communication of Science
- Countering False Beliefs: An Analysis of the Evidence and Recommendations of Best Practices for the Retraction and Correction of Scientific Misinformation
- Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective
- Philosophical Impediments to Citizens’ Use of Science
- Overcoming Confirmation and Blind Spot Biases When Communicating Science
- Understanding and Overcoming Selective Exposure and Judgment When Communicating About Science
- Overcoming Innumeracy and the Use of Heuristics When Communicating Science
- Overcoming Biases in Processing of Time Series Data About Climate
- Understanding and Overcoming Fear of the Unnatural in Discussion of GMOs
- Protecting or Polluting the Science Communication Environment?: The Case of Childhood Vaccines
- Overcoming False Causal Attribution: Debunking the MMR–Autism Association
- Overcoming the Challenges of Communicating Uncertainties Across National Contexts
- A Recap: Heuristics, Biases, Values, and Other Challenges to Communicating Science
- Conclusion—On the Horizon: The Changing Science Communication Environment
Abstract and Keywords
After showing that the frame “science is broken” is beginning to appear in mainstream media, this chapter examines the ways in which retractions and problems in peer review are characterized, both in media and by partisans, as confirmation that the scientific enterprise is untrustworthy. Media coverage of two widely reported retractions is examined to determine how the prevalence and meaning of retractions are framed. The role of the availability heuristic in prompting overgeneralization of scientific misconduct is noted. To promote trust in science, ways to communicate a “science as self-correcting” frame and to convey the rarity of retractions are explored.
social psychology, Illinois State University
Joseph Hilgard is an assistant professor of social psychology at Illinois State University and a former postdoctoral research fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center of University of Pennsylvania. His research studies the causes and consequences of aggression and poor self-control, particularly with regard to video game violence, the excessive use of video games, and racial stereotyping. He also has an active interest in ways to improve the transparency and efficiency of research, including preregistration, data sharing, and meta-analytic adjustments for publication bias.
Communication, University of Pennsylvania
Kathleen Hall Jamieson is the Elizabeth Ware Packard Professor at the Annenberg School for Communication of the University of Pennsylvania and the Walter and Leonore Annenberg Director of its Annenberg Public Policy Center. She is co-founder of FactCheck.org, which researches the veracity of claims made by political players. Its SciCheck feature was launched in 2015 to expose the misuse of scientific evidence in political discourse.
Access to the complete content on Oxford Handbooks Online requires a subscription or purchase. Public users are able to search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter without a subscription.
If you have purchased a print title that contains an access token, please see the token for information about how to register your code.