Discovery of the faithfulness gene: a model of transmission and transformation of scientific information.
Fiche du document
2008
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.1348/014466607X248912
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pmid/17945041
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/pissn/0144-6665
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/urn/urn:nbn:ch:serval-BIB_89D4C3A6AC148
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess , Copying allowed only for non-profit organizations , https://serval.unil.ch/disclaimer
Sujets proches
Terminology Nomenclature Proper names TerminologyCiter ce document
E.G. Green et al., « Discovery of the faithfulness gene: a model of transmission and transformation of scientific information. », Serveur académique Lausannois, ID : 10.1348/014466607X248912
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
The purpose of this paper is to study the diffusion and transformation of scientific information in everyday discussions. Based on rumour models and social representations theory, the impact of interpersonal communication and pre-existing beliefs on transmission of the content of a scientific discovery was analysed. In three experiments, a communication chain was simulated to investigate how laypeople make sense of a genetic discovery first published in a scientific outlet, then reported in a mainstream newspaper and finally discussed in groups. Study 1 (N=40) demonstrated a transformation of information when the scientific discovery moved along the communication chain. During successive narratives, scientific expert terminology disappeared while scientific information associated with lay terminology persisted. Moreover, the idea of a discovery of a faithfulness gene emerged. Study 2 (N=70) revealed that transmission of the scientific message varied as a function of attitudes towards genetic explanations of behaviour (pro-genetics vs. anti-genetics). Pro-genetics employed more scientific terminology than anti-genetics. Study 3 (N=75) showed that endorsement of genetic explanations was related to descriptive accounts of the scientific information, whereas rejection of genetic explanations was related to evaluative accounts of the information.