Explore the vast range of titles available.

\"In Cyberwar, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, who sifted through a vast amount of polling and voting data, is able to conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty that Russian help was crucial in elevating Trump to the Oval Office. Put simply, by changing the behavior of key players and altering the focus and content of mainstream news, Russian hackers reshaped the 2016 electoral dynamic. At the same time, Russian trolls used social media to target voting groups indispensable to a Trump victory or Clinton defeat. There are of course many arguments on offer that push against the idea that the Russians handed Trump his victory. Russia's goal was fomenting division, not electing Trump. Most of the Russian ads reportedly did not reference either the election or a candidate. Nor did they differ much from U.S.-based messaging that was already in play. Russian intervention did not surgically target Trump in key states. Finally, if WikiLeaks' releases of stolen email had truly affected the vote, Clinton's perceived honesty would have dropped in October. Jamieson, drawing from her four decades of research on the role of media in American elections, dispenses with these arguments through a forensic tracing of both Russian hackers' impact on media coverage as well as the ebbs and flows of Trump's polling support over the course of the campaign. Combining scholarly rigor with a bracing argument, Cyberwar shows that we can now be reasonably confident that Russian efforts helped put Trump in the White House\"-- Provided by publisher.

This meta-analysis investigated the factors underlying effective messages to counter attitudes and beliefs based on misinformation. Because misinformation can lead to poor decisions about consequential matters and is persistent and difficult to correct, debunking it is an important scientific and public-policy goal. This meta-analysis (k = 52, N = 6,878) revealed large effects for presenting misinformation (ds = 2.41–3.08), debunking (ds = 1.14–1.33), and the persistence of misinformation in the face of debunking (ds = 0.75–1.06). Persistence was stronger and the debunking effect was weaker when audiences generated reasons in support of the initial misinformation. A detailed debunking message correlated positively with the debunking effect. Surprisingly, however, a detailed debunking message also correlated positively with the misinformation-persistence effect.

Recent content analyses of YouTube postings reveal a proliferation of user generated videos with misleading statements about the health consequences of various types of nontraditional tobacco use (eg, electronic cigarettes; e-cigarettes). This research was aimed at obtaining evidence about the potential effects of YouTube postings about tobacco products on viewers' attitudes toward these products. A sample of young adults recruited online (N=350) viewed one of four highly viewed YouTube videos containing misleading health statements about chewing tobacco, e-cigarettes, hookahs, and pipe smoking, as well as a control YouTube video unrelated to tobacco products. The videos about e-cigarettes and hookahs led to more positive attitudes toward the featured products than did control videos. However, these effects did not fully translate into attitudes toward combustive cigarette smoking, although the pipe video led to more positive attitudes toward combustive smoking than did the chewing and the hookah videos, and the e-cigarette video led to more positive attitudes toward combustive cigarette smoking than did the chewing video. This research revealed young people's reactions to misleading claims about tobacco products featured in popular YouTube videos. Policy implications are discussed.

This article describes evidence suggesting that science curiosity counteracts politically biased information processing. This finding is in tension with two bodies of research. The first casts doubt on the existence of “curiosity” as a measurable disposition. The other suggests that individual differences in cognition related to science comprehension—of which science curiosity, if it exists, would presumably be one—do not mitigate politically biased information processing but instead aggravate it. The article describes the scale‐development strategy employed to overcome the problems associated with measuring science curiosity. It also reports data, observational and experimental, showing that science curiosity promotes open‐minded engagement with information that is contrary to individuals’ political predispositions. We conclude by identifying a series of concrete research questions posed by these results.

This work argues that, in a polarized environment scientists can minimize the likelihood that the audience's biased processing will lead to rejection of their message if they not only eschew advocacy but also, convey that they are sharers of knowledge faithful to science's way of knowing and respectful of the audience's intelligence; the sources on which they rely are well-regarded by both conservatives and liberals; and the message explains how the scientist arrived at the offered conclusion, is conveyed in a visual form that involves the audience in drawing its own conclusions, and capsulizes key inferences in an illustrative analogy. A pilot experiment raises the possibility that such a leveraginginvolving-visualizing-analogizing message structure can increase acceptance of the scientific claims about the downward cross-decade trend in Arctic sea ice extent and elicit inferences consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change among conservatives exposed to misleadingly selective data in a partisan news source.

A fundamental challenge complicates news decisions about covering vaccine side effects: although serious vaccine side effects are rare, less severe ones do occur occasionally. The study was designed to test whether a side effect message could induce vaccine hesitancy and whether that could be countered by pro-vaccine messages about vaccine safety. A large ( N = 2,345), nationally representative experiment was conducted by randomly exposing participants to one of six videos about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine edited from news programs produced during the 2019 measles outbreak in the United States. The design was a 2x3 factorial crossing the presence or absence of a hesitancy-inducing narrative message with a pro-vaccine science-supporting message (i.e., no message, science-supporting expert message, or pro-vaccine narrative message), leading to a total of six conditions. A general linear model was used to assess the effects of these videos on respondents’ (1) vaccine risk perceptions, (2) policy views on vaccination, (3) willingness to encourage others to vaccinate their children, and (4) intention to send a pro-vaccine letter to their state representative. Findings indicated that the science-supporting expert message about vaccine safety led to higher pro-vaccine evaluations relative to other conditions [e.g., b = -0.17, p < .001, a reduction in vaccine risk perceptions of 0.17 as compared to the control]. There was also suggestive evidence that the hesitancy-inducing narrative may limit the effectiveness of a science-supporting expert message, although this finding was not consistent across different outcomes. When shown alone the hesitancy-inducing narrative did not shift views and intentions, but more research is needed to ascertain whether exposure to such messages can undercut the pro-vaccine influence of science-supporting (expert) ones. All in all, however, it is clear that science-supporting messages are effective and therefore worthwhile in combating vaccine misinformation.

After documenting the existence and exploring some implications of three alternative news narratives about science and its challenges, this essay outlines ways in which those who communicate science can more accurately convey its investigatory process, self-correcting norms, and remedial actions, without in the process legitimizing an unwarranted “science is broken/in crisis” narrative. The three storylines are: (i) quest discovery, which features scientists producing knowledge through an honorable journey; (ii) counterfeit quest discovery, which centers on an individual or group of scientists producing a spurious finding through a dishonorable one; and (iii) a systemic problem structure, which suggests that some of the practices that protect science are broken, or worse, that science is no longer self-correcting or in crisis.

Despite widespread availability of safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines in the US, only about 66% of the eligible US population had taken the recommended initial doses of the COVID-19 vaccines as of April 2022. Explanations for this hesitancy have focused on misinformation about the vaccines, lack of trust in health authorities, and acceptance of conspiracy theories about the pandemic. Here we test whether those with a conspiratorial mindset, which distrusts a wide range of institutions, were poised to reject COVID vaccines before the pandemic even began. To answer that question, we reinterviewed members of a national US panel that we had previously surveyed beginning in 2018. As hypothesized, having a conspiratorial mindset in 2019 predicted COVID-vaccination hesitancy in 2021 better than prior trust in health authorities or acceptance of vaccine misinformation. Those with the mindset were also more likely to consume media that bolstered belief in pandemic conspiracies. Research is needed on the determinants of conspiratorial mindset and ways to minimize the likelihood that consequential health decisions will be influenced by it.

During his first 100 days as the 45th president of the United States, Donald J. Trump launched Twitter attacks against “Fake Tears Chuck Schumer,” members of the Republican Freedom Caucus, and a district court judge; accused his predecessor of “wiretapping” his phone, though there was no evidence for the claim; and baffled observers by appearing to lament a nonexistent terrorist attack in Sweden. Here we argue not simply that Trump’s norm-shattering rhetoric deviates from that of his predecessors but also that his discursive patterns constitute a double-edged rhetorical identity or signature. This rhetorical signature both certified Trump’s authenticity as a change candidate to a constituency eager for the disruption of politics as usual and now complicates his ability to govern in a political system still accustomed to those conventions. Applied linguists have argued that “whereas in principle any speaker/writer can use any word at any time, speakers in fact tend to make typical and individuating co-selections of preferred words.” Although the concept of a “rhetorical signature” is not invariably attached to the outcome, computerized textual analysis has been used to identify linguistic differences among presidential candidates and presidents. Additionally, rhetoric scholars have isolated lines of argument, patterns of inference, and stylistic idiosyncrasies that not only distinguish one president from another but also affect governance. Here we label these characteristics a president’s rhetorical signature, a concept defined as “the symbolic marking distinguishing his mode of reasoning and expression from other presidents.” The rhetorical signature that Donald Trump deployed as a presidential candidate, as president-elect, and during the first 100 days of his presidency includes seeming spontaneity laced with Manichean, evidence-flouting, accountability-dodging, and institution-disdaining claims. By offering apparently impromptu messaging in scriptless speeches and tweets at unusual hours, Trump broke with the sanitized, prepackaged rhetoric of his predecessors. His apocalyptic contrasting of demise and deliverance, parsing of individuals as winners and losers, and demonization of those with whom he disagrees also differentiate Trump’s rhetorical repertoire from that of those who previously held the office. Moreover, unlike his predecessors, Trump dismisses uncongenial evidence from institutionalized custodians of knowledge such as the Bureau of Labor Statistics. He not only relies on hearsay, anecdote, and suspect information in partisan media but also shifts the burden of proof to those who oppose his conclusions and shuns responsibility for distributing faulty information. At the same time, more so than those who came before him, Trump rejects conventional standards of accountability, denies discernible reality, including some of his own past statements, and, when caught, distracts. Finally, more so than past presidential contenders, when it serves his advantage, Trump questions the integrity of democratic institutions, some of which can hold a president accountable for abuse of power or misuse of evidence, including the electoral system, the courts, the justice system, and the media. These attacks are consistent with his dismissal of American exceptionalism and with his assertion that the country is in crisis. We will treat each signature cluster in turn.