It's a while since I last read the articles mentioned by Jeff and the
booklet by Jon. One or other (Jon's in particular) surely mention it, but in
case not, there is Mazur's 'quantity of coverage' hypothesis. In a nutshell,
Mazur reckoned the greater the quantity of coverage of X, no matter whether
negative or positive, the more the public perceive X as risky. The locus
classicus seems to be his 1990 article, 'Nuclear Power, Chemical Hazards,
and the Quantity of Reporting', _Minerva_, 28(3), 294-323.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: psci-com: on the public understanding of science
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Regan Forrest
Sent: 20 December 2004 12:57
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [PSCI-COM] Information and attitudes
Hi,
I think I remember someone on this list citing some research that showed
that access to more information about science does not necessarily lead to a
more positive attitude to it - in some cases, it was the reverse.
Does anyone remember this and know where I could get hold of a summary of
this research?
**********************************************************************
1. To suspend yourself from the list, whilst on leave, for example,
send an email to [log in to unmask] with the following message:
set psci-com nomail
2. To resume email from the list, send the following message:
set psci-com mail
3. To leave psci-com, send an email to [log in to unmask] with the message:
leave psci-com
4. Further information about the psci-com discussion list, including list archive,
can be found at the list web site: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/psci-com.html
5. The psci-com gateway to internet resources on science communication and science
and society can be found at http://psci-com.org.uk
**********************************************************************
|