MSRG Research News

Scientists, advocates, and policymakers frequently cite the “public understanding of science,” but rarely ever carefully define the term, leaving me to wonder what is exactly meant when the phrase is used to diagnose social problems, characterize institutional initiatives, or describe entire organizations.

Sometimes the term is used to issue a call to arms in a political conflict. If the public only better understood the science involved, the controversy would likely go away. A scientist quoted in a recent PBS NewsHour report on Intelligent Design, characterizes the challenge to science in typical fashion: “Part of it is a failure to really understand the scientific process. Unfortunately, the United States falls far behind in terms of our scientific appreciation and scientific understanding.”

See more at:http://www.csicop.org/scienceandmedia/definitions/

May, 2005

MSRG is happy to announce that John Besley and Bruce Hardy have won Anson Rowe awards this year, in recognition of their outsatnding performance as graduate students.

May, 2005

MSRG is delighted that Bruce Hardy has been accepted in the Ph D program at the Annenberg School for Communication . We wish him well and look forward to collaborations in the future.

April, 2005

The Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) recently awarded John C. Besley a doctoral fellowship for 2005-2006. John is currently conducting research for his dissertation on the degree to which the media address fair process in the coverage of local public life, as well as the potential effect of such content.

March, 2005

STUDY: POST-9/11 TV NEWS DROVE LIBERALS TOWARD A HARDER LINE

MADISON - Liberals who gleaned most of their news from television in the days after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks increased their support for expanded police powers, bringing them closer in line with the opinions of conservatives, a study by a University of Wisconsin-Madison researcher shows.

In contrast, heavy newspaper reading by liberals was related to lower levels of support for expanded police powers and for limits on privacy and freedom of information, basically reinforcing the differences between liberals and conservatives, says Dietram Scheufele, a UW-Madison journalism professor who conducted the study.

"TV pushed the two groups together in their thinking about post-9/11 policies, such as the Patriot Act. It made liberals more conservative. It took them away from what they initially believed and pushed them more toward a more conservative law-and-order stance," Scheufele says.

The study, soon to be published in the journal Mass Communications & Society, is based on a survey of nearly 800 residents of Tompkins County, N.Y., in the fall of 2001, shortly after the attacks. Its results have been validated by two subsequent national surveys.

The survey showed that among liberals who watched little television, about 20 percent favored more government police powers. But about 41 percent of liberals who were heavy viewers of TV news supported such measures - much closer to the 50 to 60 percent of conservatives who supported greater police powers, regardless of how much TV news they watched.

The gap between conservatives and liberals widened, however, among heavy newspaper readers.

About 39 percent of light-reading liberals backed restricting freedom of speech in the days after the attacks, versus 31 percent who were heavy newspaper readers. Among conservatives, about 66 percent favored the limits, and nearly 70 percent of heavy readers backed the restrictions.

"Newspaper reading tended to reinforce partisan leanings, partly because it is more selective, readers have more options and seek out their own viewpoints," Scheufele says. "By contrast, TV coverage is very linear, doesn't offer any choice and was more image driven. You saw the plane hitting the building time and time again."

Scheufele says post-9/11 television coverage quickly switched to war themes, such as CNN's "America's New War," MSNBC's "America on Alert" and Fox News' "War on Terror."

In addition to repeated images of the terror attacks, Scheufele says television news coverage emphasized flag-waving ceremonies, religious services and celebrity telethons.

"It wasn't just a Fox News phenomenon. It was across all of the TV coverage," says Scheufele, who was the lead investigator on the project. His associates were Matthew Nisbet, an assistant professor at The Ohio State University, and Ronald Ostman, a professor at Cornell University.

If his research offers a lesson, Scheufele says, it is that citizens need to have a varied diet of news from a variety of sources and viewpoints.

"Newspapers have been on the decline," Scheufele notes. "But this is a very strong argument for keeping newspapers alive. They provide more in-depth and two-sided coverage. Results like these are one of the strongest arguments why newspapers are needed."

A copy of the study is available at: http://www.journalism.wisc.edu/~scheufele/scheufele_civil.pdf.
###
- Dennis Chaptman, (608) 262-9408, dchaptman@wisc.edu

March, 2005

Majority of New Yorkers oppose Social Security plan

More than half of all New York state residents (51 percent) oppose President Bush's proposal to change Social Security by allowing individuals to privately invest a portion of their Social Security taxes, according to a poll by Cornell University's School of Industrial and Labor Relations Survey Research Institute (SRI). The poll found that only about one-third of residents (36 percent) surveyed support the proposal. The survey was conducted between Feb. 7 and Feb. 26 and involved 802 interviews with residents from both upstate and downstate New York. "The results were weighted based on geography [upstate vs. downstate] to account for population distribution and otherwise are representative of other key demographic criteria [gender, race, income, employment]," says Erik C. Nisbet, project manager for the SRI's Empire State Poll. (March 10, 2005)

http://www.sri.cornell.edu/esp/Soc_Sec_Report_2005.pdf

March, 2005

Cressey Professorship for Moy

Dean David Hodge has appointed, and the Provost has approved, Patricia Moy as the first Christy Cressey Professor in Communication. The inauguration of the professorship, with a lecture and reception, will occur in Autumn Quarter, 2005.

The Cressey professorship, donated to the Department by UW alumni Christy and Bryan Cressey, is designed to honor faulty who “have demonstrated, through professional activities, expertise in the field of Communication.”

Patricia Moy is an Associate Professor in the Department of Communication and Adjunct Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science. Since joining the UW faculty in 1998, she has taught undergraduate and graduate classes in public opinion, media effects, communication theory, and methodology and statistics.

A political communication scholar whose work is recognized nationally and internationally, Moy conducts research that underscores the centrality of communication in a democratic system. She examines how the mass media affect public opinion and political attitudes, influence citizens’ ways of thinking and deliberating about issues, and shape their political and civic behavior. She has studied communication phenomena in numerous social and political contexts, including the World Trade Organization protests, Y2K, crime policy proposals, religion, affirmative action, and a labor union strike. Moy’s research has appeared in leading communication journals, including Communication Research, International Journal of Public Opinion Research, Journal of Communication, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, and Political Communication. Her book, With Malice Toward All? The Media and Public Confidence in Democratic Institutions (Praeger, 2000, with Michael Pfau), investigates the role that traditional and nontraditional news sources (such as political talk radio and late-night comedy) play in shaping audience members’ trust in government.

Moy is an active member in the field’s professional organizations. She currently is Vice-Chair of the International Communication Association’s Political Communication Division. She has served on the Executive Councils of the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the World Association for Public Opinion Research, and as head of the Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication. Moy sits on the editorial boards of Journal of Communication, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Mass Communication & Society, and Public Opinion Quarterly (as Book Reviews Editor). She also has served as Book Reviews Editor for the International Journal of Public Opinion Research.

Moy earned her Ph.D. in Journalism and Mass Communication from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and her B.S. and M.S. in Communication at Cornell University. From 1991 to 1994, she worked as an analyst for Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty in Munich, Germany, studying media and public opinion in the former Soviet Union.

March, 2005

MSRG presents two papers in recent Journal of Communication

Two papers by MSRG authors are appearing in this month's iisue of Journal of Communication. They are Examining Differential Gains From Internet Use: Comparing the Moderating Role of Talk and Online Interactions by Bruce W. Hardy and Dietram A. Scheufele; and Who Cares About the Issues? Issue Voting and the Role of News Media During the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election by Sei-Hill Kim, Dietram A. Scheufele and James Shanahan.

Bruce W. Hardy is a graduate student in the Department of Communication at Cornell University.Sei-Hill Kim is an assistant professor in the Department of Communication & Journalism at Auburn University. Dietram A. Scheufele is a professor in the School of Journalism & Mass Communication at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. James Shanahan is an associate professor in the Department of Communication at Cornell University

March, 2005

MSRG to present papers at ICA 2005

Two Cornell-based MSRG members will vie for the top student paper in political communication at this year’s annual meeting of the International Communication Association (ICA) in New York City.

Ph.D. students Erik C. Nisbet and John C. Besley will both present individual papers during the “Top Student Papers in Political Communication” along with a third student researcher from the University of Pennsylvania. One of the three papers will be awarded the top student paper prize during the division’s annual business meeting. Nisbet won the award in 2004.

Nisbet’s paper is titled “Mass Media Use and Democratic Consolidation: The Case of Mali." Besley’s paper is titled “Entertainment Television and its Interactions with Individual Values in Explaining Political Participation.”

In total, faculty and student members of MSRG contributed to 14 different papers that will appear at Cornell University.

Mass Communication Division

Cultural Indicators: Integrating Measures of Meaning with Economic and Social Indicators (Shanahan, E. Nisbet, Diels, Hardy and Besley).

Developing Cultural Indicators of Social Change: The Case of Homosexuality (E. Nisbet and Shanahan)

The Salience of Small: Nanotechnology Coverage in the American Press, 1986-2004 (Gorse, Lewenstein, and Radin*)

Political Communication Division

Defining Deliberation: Key Determinants and Distinct Dimensions (Hardy, Scheufele, and Wang)

Framing Justice: Using the Concept of Procedural Justice to Advance Political Communication Research (Besley and McComas*)

Institutions, Media, and Public Opinion: The Case of Agricultural Biotechnology (Brossard and M. Nisbet)

Political Discussion and Democratic Citizenship: Comparing Heterogeneous and Homogeneous Political Discussion as Promoters of Active Citizenry (Hardy)

Intercultural Communication Division

Talking about Drugs: How Family and Media Shape Youth Risk Behaviors (Granka* and Scheufele)

Organizational Communication

The Role of Instant Messaging as a Tool for Organizational Communication: An Exploratory Field Experiment (Shaw*, Sheufele, and Catalano*)

Communication and Technology

The Dialogic Aspects of Attribution, Identification, and Distribution in Online Groups (Hancock*, Bazarova*, Wang, Pena*, Barrett*, and McLeod*)

The Internet and Participatory Capital: Exploring the Relationships between Specific Uses of the Internet and Involvement in Social Groups (Hardy and Gonzalez*)

Interpersonal Attraction and Intergroup Identification: Cognitive Effects of Group Distribution and Their Measurement Issues (Wang and Loh*)

* Not members of MSRG.

March, 2005

Matt Nisbet's article on public opinion about evolution

Matt Nisbet has authored a piece entitled "Polling Opinion about Evolution: Low Information Public Underscores Importance of Communication Strategy," which is published on the web site of the Committee for the Scientific Invetsigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP).

November, 2004

Cornell researcher awarded grant to examine root causes of global anti-Americanism

Dr. James Shanahan, International Professor of Communication in the Cornell School of Agriculture and Life Sciences and a member of the Media & Society Research Group (MSRG) at Cornell University, has been awarded a grant from the United States Institute for Peace (USIP). The USIP is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts. More information on the USIP may be found at www.usip.gov.

The award is to fund research on “Global indicators of anti-Americanism: lessons for public diplomacy”. Shanahan, working with Erik Nisbet of MSRG, will use a combination of international survey data, social, economic, and political indicators, and media indicators to develop quantitative models exploring which factors promote anti-Americanism worldwide. The overall goal of the project is to align public policy options and responses with quantitative measures in order to address the global problem of anti-Americanism.

Contact:James E. Shanahan, Ph.D.
Associate Professor/International Professor
Department of Communication
Cornell University
314 Kennedy Hall
Ithaca, NY 14850
Phone: 607-255-8058
Fax: 607-254-1322
Email: jes30@cornell.edu

August, 2004

Matt Nisbet interviewed in Science on stem cells in the media.

Matt Nisbet was interviewed in Science magazine, commenting on stem cells and their role in the 2004 Presidential campaign. The article is on page 760 of the August 6, 2004 edition. See the article at http://www.sciencemag.org.

March 5, 2004 -- FOR RELEASE 9 a.m.

A CULTURAL PARADIGM SHIFT ON GAY MARRIAGE? NOT IN 2004.

Gay marriage will not be a focal issue during the 2004 election campaign. Period. In fact, Bush and Kerry will avoid the issue at all cost. And the reasons are simple. Most recent opinion polls show consistently that more than two thirds of Americans oppose gay marriage, and to make matters worse, opposition is pretty stable across party lines. In our most recent national survey, we found that almost 90 percent of Republicans but also about 60 percent of Democrats oppose gay marriage. But more importantly, almost three out of four self-identified Independents also opposed gay marriage. This group of voters, of course, is critically important for both campaigns, and neither Bush nor Kerry can afford to alienate them on this issue.

So what should the campaigns do? Bush has already made his move. He supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. Of course, he needs to rally his troops, including the Christian right as one of his most loyal constituencies. And this move should do the trick. At the same time he places the issue back in the hands of Congress rather than his campaign and distances himself from more direct involvement in the debate. However, it remains to be seen if this strategy also alienates more moderate voters in the middle. But Kerry is not in a much better position. A majority of registered Democrats is opposed to gay marriage and so are almost three quarters of Independents. And Kerry certainly does not plan to run against Bush on is an issue that a majority of his own constituency opposes and that will inevitable reinforce his image of being a Massachusetts Liberal. Consequently, he has framed his opposition to Bush's strategy in terms of supporting "states' rights" to choose their own laws, a traditionally conservative policy position.

So is there any group of voters out there that may be won over with the gay marriage issue? Our analyses show that education, not surprisingly, plays a key role. Opposition for the issue drops from about 87 percent for respondents who attended or graduated from high school to about 62 percent among respondents with graduate school education. More important than education, however, is a respondent's age. In particular, the differences between age groups in terms of attitudes toward gay marriage may be an indicator what communication scientists call a cohort effect. The idea is that - as we grow up - our own social environment shapes our attitudes and beliefs. The Vietnam generation, for example, differs significantly from the Eisenhower generation in terms of attitudes toward social issues and war. Similarly, attitudes toward gay marriage likely differ across cohorts. In other words, what we may be witnessing are the beginnings of a cultural paradigm shift. Older generations that believe firmly in the traditional idea of marriage between a man and a woman are being replaced by younger generations who grew up with a more non-traditional or secular view of marriage that often includes a more open attitude toward gay marriage. But, of course, this trend is only beginning. Our data shows that 35 percent of Americans in the 18-35 age group, 28 percent in the 36-55 age group, and only 18 percent of those 56 years or older support gay marriage. This means that even among the youngest cohorts, 64 percent oppose gay marriage. Nevertheless, the image of the young 26-year old mayor of New Paltz, NY breaking state laws to marry gay couples may be a harbinger of generational value clashes to come.

That explains why especially Kerry will avoid the issue of gay marriage during the 2004 campaign. Gay marriage is an issue that people feel strongly about. And public debate about the issue is usually not characterized by an in-depth understanding of the constitutional and legal implications of various policy proposals. Rather, discussions about the issue tend to be characterized by moral and religious self-righteousness on both sides. Gay marriage is what communication scientists call a "morally-loaded" issue, i.e., an issue that people have gut reactions to rather than cognitive ones. More importantly, few people have direct experiences with the issue. As a result, they rely on mass media to shape their views of reality. Their perceptions of what social norms and public opinion look like are being "cultivated" by mass media, as communication researchers call it. What we think is "normal" and what we perceive to be the predominant opinion climate are shaped by the shows we watch on television: NYPD Blue, Friends, Will and Grace, or That 70s Show.

And cable and network news, of course, are no different. Our data provide strong support for this phenomenon related to the gay marriage issue. When asked to estimate where they thought most American stood on the issue, FOX Cable News Channel viewers were significantly more likely to overestimate opposition to gay marriage among the general public than CNN viewers. But CNN viewers were not more accurate in their perceptions, they were simply wrong in the other direction, and overestimated public support for gay marriage. Even news media, it seems, have problems taking an objective approach to gay marriage.

Note:

These results are based on a national survey conducted in October and November 2003 with 781 adults (Margin of error: +/- 3%). The survey was designed by students in Prof. Dietram A. Scheufele's Industry Research Methods Course in the Department of Communication at Cornell University. The field work was conducted with the aid of the ILR Survey Research Institute at Cornell University.

Contact:

Dietram A. Scheufele, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism
University of Wisconsin-Madison

January 7, 2003 -- FOR RELEASE 9 a.m.

In the wake of the Patriot Act and the war on terror, a majority of Americans want their civil rights back, survey shows

A majority of Americans want their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights back, according to a national survey conducted by Cornell University's Department of Communication. Over 60 percent of Americans oppose tapping phone lines and wireless phone connections as part of the Bush administration's war on terrorism. Nearly 60 percent oppose monitoring e-mail, and the same percentage opposes outlawing constitutionally protected actions, even if some people consider the actions un-American.

"This clearly shows that Americans are more and more concerned about their civil liberties in a post-Sept. 11 world," says Dietram Scheufele, Cornell assistant professor of communication and principal investigator of the study. "Recent federal policies, such as the Patriot Act or the Total Information Awareness System, increasingly infringe upon rights and freedoms that people once took for granted, and Americans are increasingly aware of the trade-off between civil liberties and national security."

Contact:

Dietram A. Scheufele, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism
University of Wisconsin-Madison

January 7, 2003 -- FOR RELEASE 9 a.m.

Americans Receive Failing Grade for
Current Affairs Knowledge About Iraq

New survey shows that informed Americans are less supportive of war
Newspapers are more valuable source of information than television news

Americans receive a failing grade when it comes to knowledge of current affairs related to the situation in Iraq, and informed Americans are less supportive of military action against Iraq, according to analyses released today by Cornell University researchers. The survey findings also indicate that news-in-print promotes public awareness of the situation in Iraq, as more frequent newspaper readers score considerably better in terms of knowledge, but frequent television news viewing has no significant effects on knowledge, after controlling for important demographic factors.

Full release

Contact:

Dietram A. Scheufele, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Journalism
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Previous Releases

Why can't Johnny understand science? Question vexing researchers and educators to be aired at AAAS session (February 2002),

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb02/AAAS.outreach.deb.html

Contact:

Bruce V. Lewenstein
Associate Professor of Science Communication
Editor, Public Understanding of Science
Cornell University
321 Kennedy Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853 USA
Tel: +1-607-255-8310
Fax: +1-607-254-1322

From somber Silent Spring to creative Cosmos, author's style can make difference in selling science, says Cornell researcher (February 2001),

http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Feb01/Lewenstein.AAAS.je.deb.html

Background Articles on Polling and Surveys

Dietram A. Scheufele:
TECHNICAL ISSUES RELATED TO
POLLING IN A COMMUNITY
The Ithaca Journal (July 5, 2000), p. 9A

Ron E. Ostman & Dietram A. Scheufele:
WHAT POLLING CAN, CAN'T DO
The Ithaca Journal (June 10, 2000), p. 10A

(C) DAS 2003