Asheley R. Landrum, PhD Assistant Professor Science of Science Communication College of Media & Communication Texas Tech University

Transcription

1 Asheley R. Landrum, PhD Assistant Professor Science of Science Communication College of Media & Communication Texas Tech

2 @ArtMemeKing

3

4

5 This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-SA-NC

6 @ArtMemeKing

7

8 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

9 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Proposition 1: Media effects are conditional Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

10 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

11 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Proposition 2: Response states mediate the relationship between media use and its effects Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

12 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

13 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Proposition 3: Differential susceptibility variables have two roles: Media Effects Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

14 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Proposition 3: Differential susceptibility variables have two roles: Media Effects 1) As predictors Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

15 Dispositional Developmental Social Media Use Response States Proposition 3: Differential susceptibility variables have two roles: Media Effects 2) As Moderators Valkenberg & Peter (2013)

16 Dispositional Religiosity Conspiracy Mentality Science Literacy Experimental Manipulation Media Use Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

17 402 YouTube Users Recruited using TurkPrime Naïve users

18

19 Three items: Believable, Convincing, Strong

20

21

22 Dispositional Experimental Manipulation Media Use Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

23 Dispositional Experimental Manipulation Media Use Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Media Effects

24

25 F(2, 296)=3.47, p =.033

26

27 F(2, 294)=6.39, p =.002

28 Differences between the Video Clips (Condition) Conspiracy mentality Science Literacy Religiosity Interactions between these factors

29 Explains 26.55% of Response Variance Explains 9.69% of Response Variance

30

31

32

33

34 Conspiracy Mentality (7.8%) Science Literacy (7.7%) Condition (4.5%)

35

36 F(2, 296)=3.47, p =.033

37 Conspiracy mentality

38 Science Literacy

39

40

41 1. Conspiracy mentality increases perceptions of argument strength. 2. Science literacy decreases perceptions of argument strength. 3. Video clip influenced the amount of counterarguing: people who saw the religious clip counterargued more than those who saw the science clip.

42 Dispositions Experimental Manipulation Clips Watched Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

43 Dispositions Experimental Manipulation Clips Watched Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

44 Dispositions Experimental Manipulation Clips Watched Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

45

46 Dispositions Experimental Manipulation Clips Watched Response States Argument Strength Counterarguing Openness to Researching Flat Earth Media Effects

47 Clips Watched Response States Science Literacy Media Effects Conspiracy Mentality

48 1. The media effect (openness to researching flat earth) was conditional on which clip someone saw and how conspiracy-oriented they are.

49 low high

50 1. The media effect (openness to researching flat earth) was conditional on which clip someone saw and how conspiracy-oriented they are.

51 1. The media effect (openness to researching flat earth) was conditional on which clip someone saw and how conspiracy-oriented they are. 2. People with lower science literacy were more influenced by what they perceived to be strong arguments.

52 weak strong

53 1. The media effect (openness to researching flat earth) was conditional on which clip someone saw and how conspiracy-oriented they are. 2. People with lower science literacy were more influenced by what they perceived to be strong arguments.

54 1. People with lower science literacy and greater conspiracy mentality are more susceptible to the effects of the flat earth videos. 2. The science-sounding arguments may have the potential to move nonconspiracy theorists.

55 1. There are scientific findings more controversial than the flat earth. 2. YouTube is trying, but what information do we put out there to combat misinformation? 3. We need to build trust within our local communities.

56

57

58 1. There are scientific findings more controversial than the flat earth. 2. YouTube is trying, but what information do we put out there to combat misinformation? 3. We need to build trust within our local communities.

59

60 1. There are scientific findings more controversial than the flat earth. 2. YouTube is trying, but what information do we (scientists) put out there to combat misinformation? 3. We need to build trust within our local communities.

61 Othello Richards, MA Anticipated graduation in 2020 Alex Olshansky, MA Anticipated graduation in 2021

62 Asheley R. Landrum, PhD Assistant Professor Science of Science Communication College of Media & Communication Texas Tech