Early exposures to ecogenomics: Effects of priming and web site interactivity among adolescents

Article English OPEN
Bos, Mark J.W.; Koolstra, Cees M.; Willems, Jaap T.J.M.;
  • Subject: IR-73291 | Priming | Web site interactivity | Knowledge Acquisition | perceived cognitive load | attitude development | ecogenomics

In the context of public introductions to emerging technologies, this study examined effects of priming and Web site interactivity on adolescents' attitude development and information processing. In a four (priming) by three (interactivity levels) experiment, participan... View more
  • References (65)
    65 references, page 1 of 7

    Beetlestone, J. G., Johnson, C. H., Quin, M., & White, H. (1998). The science center movement: Contexts, practice, next challenges. Public Understanding of Science, 7, 5-26.

    Bonfadelli, H., Dahinden, U., & Leonarz, M. (2002). Biotechnology in Switzerland: High on the public agenda, but only moderate support. Public Understanding of Science, 11, 113-130.

    Bos, M. J. W., Koolstra, C. M., & Willems, J. (2009). Adolescent responses toward a new technology: First associations, information seeking, and affective responses to ecogenomics. Public Understanding of Science, 18, 243-253.

    Boyle, M. P., Schmierbach, M., Armstrong, C. L., Cho, J., Mccluskey, M., Mcleod, D. M., et al. (2006). Expressive responses to news stories about extremist groups: A framing experiment. Journal of Communication, 56, 271-288.

    Brewer, P. R., Graf, J., & Willnat, L. (2003). Priming or framing: Influence on attitudes toward foreign countries. International Communication Gazette, 65, 493-508.

    Bucchi, M., & Neresini, F. (2002). Biotech remains unloved by the more informed: The media may be providing the message-but is anyone heeding the call? Nature, 416, 261.

    Burgoon, J. K., Bonito, J. A., Ramirez, A., Jr., Dunbar, N. E., Kam, K., & Fischer, J. (2002). Testing the interactivity principle: Effects of mediation, propinquity, and verbal and nonverbal modalities in interpersonal interaction. Journal of Communication, 52, 657-677.

    Cobb, M. D. (2005). Framing effects on public opinion about nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27, 221-239.

    Cobb, M. D., & Macoubrie, J. (2004). Public perceptions about nanotechnology: Risks, benefits and trust. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 6, 395-405.

    Cocheret de la Monière, E. (2006). De betrokken burger: Een betoog voor meer interactive wetenschapscommunicatie [The engaged citizen: An argument for more interactive science communication]. In B. Broekhans, A. E. Dijkstra, P. Groenewegen, & C. M. Koolstra (Eds.), Verbeelding van wetenschap, Jaarboek kennissamenleving 2 [Images of sciences, Yearbook knowledge society] (pp. 54-68). Amsterdam: Aksant.

  • Metrics
Share - Bookmark