How the public evaluates various sources of scientific information: A descriptive examination.

IF 3.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Austin Y Hubner, Blue Lerner, Hillary C Shulman
{"title":"How the public evaluates various sources of scientific information: A descriptive examination.","authors":"Austin Y Hubner, Blue Lerner, Hillary C Shulman","doi":"10.1177/09636625261437376","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study examines six types of science, health, and medical sources, focusing on public perceptions of each source's gender, credibility, benevolence, and political affiliation. Results reveal that medical doctors were rated highest in credibility and benevolence. All of the expert sources were more likely to be reported as male, reflecting persistent stereotypes. Public health experts and academic scientists were perceived as more liberal, whereas medical doctors and industry scientists did not have perceived political affiliations. Across all sources, perceptions of political partisanship corresponded with lower credibility perceptions. Implications for science and health communication research and practice are considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625261437376"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625261437376","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examines six types of science, health, and medical sources, focusing on public perceptions of each source's gender, credibility, benevolence, and political affiliation. Results reveal that medical doctors were rated highest in credibility and benevolence. All of the expert sources were more likely to be reported as male, reflecting persistent stereotypes. Public health experts and academic scientists were perceived as more liberal, whereas medical doctors and industry scientists did not have perceived political affiliations. Across all sources, perceptions of political partisanship corresponded with lower credibility perceptions. Implications for science and health communication research and practice are considered.

公众如何评价各种科学信息来源:一个描述性的检验。
本研究考察了六种类型的科学、健康和医疗来源,重点关注公众对每种来源的性别、可信度、仁慈和政治派别的看法。结果显示,医生在诚信和仁爱方面得分最高。所有的专家来源更有可能被报道为男性,这反映了持久的刻板印象。公共卫生专家和学术科学家被认为更自由,而医生和工业科学家则没有明显的政治倾向。在所有来源中,对政治党派关系的看法与较低的可信度看法相对应。考虑对科学和卫生传播研究和实践的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书