Filter by author: Ashley A. Anderson

Correction of misinformation is a top priority for scientific organizations. Concern over misinformation is particularly prominent in social media, which is characterized by incivility. Because correcting misinformation online can expose scientists to uncivil responses or personal attacks, understanding barriers and motivations to correct misinformation among individual scientists is critical to identifying how institutions can best support scientists to maintain engagement in public communication of science. In this commentary, we review survey data of scientists at land-grant universities in the United States ($n = 413$) and find that a tendency to self-censor is not related to scientists' propensity to correct misinformation in social media. Deliberative aspirations, however — or the prospect of opening up peoples' minds to other perspectives — are related to behavioral intentions to correct misinformation for women scientists, in particular, as shown by a significant gender interaction effect. We conclude with specific recommendations that support motivations aligned with deliberative aspirations.

This theoretical paper proposes a framework for how citizen science can be adapted to organizational contexts. Using an “input, process, output” approach, this model proposes organizational factors (e.g., communication channels and styles, and organizational structure) that should be considered when choosing among citizen science approaches (e.g., contributory, collaborative, co-created). The essay identifies possible outcomes for the individual, organization, and larger sector from employing a citizen science approach within an organizational setting.

The research explores the differential impact of exposure to one-sided vs. two-sided satire about climate change on message processing. Analyzing experimental data (N =141) we find that one-sided satire offered by ‘The Onion’ ironically claiming that global warming is a hoax encourages viewers to engage in greater message elaboration and counterarguing. In contrast, two-sided satire offered by ‘The Weather Channel’ that makes jokes about those who believe in vs. reject human involvement in climate change is quickly discounted. We conclude by discussing the strategic value of incorporating one-sided satirical humor in communication efforts focused on climate change engagement.