“Quote an Outside Female Scientist”:

Priming of news factors andscience press release quality

Paige Brown – Experimental Methods

Don

Sta

lon

s, CD

C.g

ov

What determines the newsworthiness of a science press release?• Inclusion of confirming outside evidence? • Based on scientific value of replication, “mature” research and scientific consensus

• Inclusion of disconfirming outside evidence?• Based on journalistic value of conflict/controversy• A previous study (Brown, 2013, under review) showed a climate science press release with a disconfirming quote to be more newsworthy than one with a confirming quote…

•The importance a communicator ascribes to individual news factors? • conflict/controversy, timeliness, relevance, facts / reliability of facts, etc.• Can we PRIME these?

Scientific Sources and Gender• This survey also tests effects of the gender of the “outside” scientist quoted in a press release (i.e. outside evidence)

Image: Nature feature http://www.nature.com/news/specials/sciencejournalism/index.html

What’s wrong with this picture? (Hint* Women in science?!)

DesignControl Conflict/Controversy news

factorReliability of facts news factor

“This survey concerns an interest in how science journalists use a variety of news factors in their selection of potential science news stories…

“This survey concerns an interest in how science journalists use conflict or controversy as criteria in their selection of potential science news stories. [description of conflict / controversy] Part I of this survey revealed that on average, science journalists rated conflict or controversy as an important criterion of newsworthiness in their selection and production of potential science news stories […] rated this news factor 8.0 on an 11-point scale…

This survey concerns an interest in how science journalists use reliability of factual information as a criterion in their selection of potential science news stories. [description of reliability of facts] Part I of this survey revealed that on average, science journalists rated reliability of factual information as an important criterion in their selection and production of potential science news stories. […] rated this news factor 9.9 on an 11-point scale…

1. News Factor Priming condition (random assignment)

2. Press Release on a Scientific Study (independent random assignment)

Confirming quote (female)

Confirming quote (male)

Disconfirming quote (female)

Disconfirming quote (male)

3. Survey Questions: How newsworthy was the press release?

Outside evidence in press release about a new class of antibiotics (Female PI)• Confirming quote:• Blake/Susan Lawrence at Johns Hopkins University, who

helped pioneer research on CRISPR-Cas systems, confirms Remler’s results. "This work builds on well-established science and is a significant step forward in taking our understanding of the CRISPR-Cas system and using it to create a practical tool that addresses the drug-resistance problem,” Lawrence says. “A lot of work remains to be done, but it's a very promising line of inquiry."

•Disconfirming quote:• However, Blake/Susan Lawrence at Johns Hopkins University,

who helped pioneer research on CRISPR-Cas systems, would like to see more definitive results before plans are made to scale up these processes as an alternative to traditional antibiotics. "This is a new approach to targeted strain removal, but it remains unclear whether it is as effective as existing techniques. And I am unconvinced that the technique can be scaled up in a meaningful way to address bacterial infection on any kind of large scale."

Male Condition

Female Condition

Participants

Recruited online, through

social media networks

and science blogs

217 participants

Outcome measures• Likelihood1: “How likely is it that you would write a story based on study presented in the press release?” (0-10 scales)• Likelihood2: “How likely is it that the media platform you work/write for would write a story based on the study presented in the press release?” • Likelihood3: “How likely is it that a newspaper or magazine editor would accept a pitch for a story based on the press release?” • Likelihood4: “How likely is it that other news outlets would write a story based on the study presented in the press release?”

• How newsworthy is the press release in terms of… (conflict/controversy, significance, meaningfulness to readers, reliability of facts, human interest, etc.) (0-10 scale)• How important are the following elements of newsworthiness to you, as general guiding principles in your selection of stories… (conflict/controversy, significance, meaningfulness to readers, reliability of facts, human interest, etc.) (0-10 scale)

Results: Outside Evidence•Main Effects of Press Release • Respondents found the confirming press release(s) to

be significantly more newsworthy.• “How likely is it that you would write a story based on study

presented in the press release?” (Confirming: M = 5.68, SD = 3.41; Disconfirming: M = 4.82, SD = 3.22; F(1,217) = 3.90, p < .05, partial eta squared = .02)

Table 3.

Based on your reading, on a scale of 0-10, how newsworthy is the story in the press release in terms of…

Confirming Press Release

Disconfirming Press Release

Mean SD Mean SD

Significance/Public Impact 7.99** 2.47 6.85 2.64

Meaningfulness/Relevance to readers

7.15* 2.60 6.25 2.61

Novelty/Unexpectedness 7.40 2.42 7.01 2.40

Currency 8.23** 2.46 7.17 2.77

Conflict/Controversy 3.94 2.53 5.08** 2.50

Unambiguity 6.36* 2.64 5.49 2.44

Reliability of Facts 7.47** 2.20 6.65 2.36

Human Interest 6.92** 2.90 5.78 2.90

Note: *p < .05; **p < .01

Results: Gender• Effects of Gender: MANOVA

Table 4 – Post-Hoc comparisons for press release stimulus condition based on gender of quoted outside source.

Confirming

Female Confirming Male

Disconfirming Female

Disconfirming Male

Univariate F Partial eta2

Likelihood1 1.96 .027 M 6.11a 5.28ab 4.84b 4.80b S.E. .42 .41 .46 .45 Likelihood2 1.04 .015 M 5.52a 4.71a 4.53a 4.86a S.E. .42 .41 .45 .45 Likelihood3 1.21 .017 M 6.52a 6.28a 5.62a 6.16a S.E. .33 .32 .36 .35 Likelihood4 .25 .02 M 6.94a 7.15a 6.41a 6.27a S.E. .35 .34 .37 .37

Multivariate: Wilk’s lamda = .937, F(12, 548) = 1.14, p > .05, Partial Eta Squared = .022 Means with different lowercase subscripts are significantly different from one another, p < .05 (no adjustment for multiple comparisons).

Results: Gender• The press release with a confirming quote from an outside female scientist was perceived as significantly more newsworthy in terms of reliability of facts (M = 7.66, SD = 2.23) than were press releases with a disconfirming quote either from a male (M = 6.82; SD = 2.26; Mean difference = .87, SE = .44, p = .051) or from a female (M = 6.56, SD = 2.44; Mean difference = 1.11, SE = .45, p < .05).• The same was NOT true for the press release with a confirming quote from an outside male scientist.

Results: Priming

• The news factor priming messages did not have their intended impacts: NO significant direct effects of news factor priming variables, relative to the control, on participants’ importance ratings of conflict/controversy or reliability of facts.

•NO significant interaction found between general news factor importance ratings and confirming vs. disconfirming press release manipulation on outcome variables (likelihood to cover the story).

•Summary: we didn’t move news decisions by priming certain news factors.

What does it all mean?• Confirming vs. Disconfirming outside evidence:• Disconfirming evidence related to a medical science

finding might be a deterrent for science communicators when deciding whether a particular science story is significant, meaningful and worth covering. This is a positive finding• Lesson for science PIOs: including an outside quote in a

press release can be an important cue to journalists

•Gender• Future research needed. Do communicators trust a

female scientist more than a male scientist to give an unbiased evaluation of a given research study? A female scientist giving a confirming quote leads to higher perceived newsworthiness – why?

• Priming• News factors are probably well embedded in science

communicators’ news decisions

Thanks!

Acknowledgments:- All stimulus articles were originally written by and created in collaboration with Matt Shipman, an experienced science communicator and public communication specialist at NC State in Raleigh, North Carolina.- Thanks to all survey participants, and multiple science communicators for re-tweeted my survey link