Chapter 20
Entertainment Media Portrayals and Their
Effects on the Public Understanding of Science
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
Matthew C. Nisbet*,1 and Anthony Dudo2
1School
of Communication, American University,
4400 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20016
2Department of Advertising & Public Relations,
The University of Texas at Austin, Belo Center for New Media,
300 W. Dean Keeton (A1200), Austin, Texas 78712
*E-mail: [email protected]
For decades members of the scientific community have
lamented the state of entertainment media, which they often
assume portrays science and scientists negatively and creates
public animosity toward science. In this chapter, we review
research that provides important context for these longstanding
concerns. We first discuss research examining patterns in
Hollywood portrayals of scientists and science, which suggest
that over the past decade there has been a trend toward ever
more positive “hero” portrayals of scientists. We then review
research examining the contributions of entertainment media to
perceptions of science, highlighting their potential to reinforce
beliefs in the promise of science and support for controversial
areas of research.
Since as early as the 1970s, many members of the scientific community have
criticized entertainment, television, and film portrayals for promoting negative
stereotypes about scientists, for featuring improbable or inaccurate scenarios and
depictions, and as contributing to a perceived culture of “anti-science.” In this
chapter, we review research that offers important insight and context for these
longstanding concerns. First, we discuss relevant research analyzing trends and
patterns in the portrayal of scientists and science over time and across Hollywood
genres. Contrary to the fears of many scientists, this research in fact suggests
© 2013 American Chemical Society
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
that over the past decade there has been a trend towards ever more positive
“hero” portrayals of scientists. We then review research correlating individual
forms of entertainment media use with perceptions of science generally and of
specific controversial topics such as biotechnology. As these findings suggest,
entertainment TV viewing tends to reinforce belief in the promise of science and
support for controversial areas of research, though these effects vary by genre and
by the background of the audience member.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
Science on Screen
Previous studies suggest there is no one portrayal of scientists or theme about
science that appears consistently across film and television programming. Instead,
portrayals are marked by their diversity, with multiple images often appearing
within the same film or program. These portrayals have also shifted across decades
depending on social or historical context. Moreover, even those presentations or
programs conventionally perceived as hostile to perceptions of science, such as
The X-Files, offer important opportunities for social learning.
Archetypes of Scientists
Scholars have identified four main archetypes for scientists as characters.
Depictions prior to the 1990s featured some of the most negative archetypes, yet
over the past two decades, the most positive archetype—scientist as hero—appears
with increasing frequency as a central character both in film and television. This
trend suggests that somewhat contrary to scientists’ impressions, their image is
not as negatively slanted as they might presume. Yet the trend towards more
positive archetypes does not mean that scientists are portrayed realistically.
Whether a nerd, a villain, or a hero, each of these archetypes are not reflective
of scientists generally as a profession or as citizens. Only in biopics depicting
the lives of real-world scientists such as Charles Darwin, Alfred Kinsey, or John
Nash is realism likely achieved (1–4).
The first archetype is that of Dr. Frankenstein, the sinister scientist who
pursues socially irresponsible research only to be doomed by failure and often
death. Noteworthy examples in films include Gregory Peck as Dr. Mengele
in Boys from Brazil, Marlon Brando as the title character in The Island of Dr.
Moreau, and Jeff Goldblum as a scientist ruined by self-experimentation in The
Fly. On television, the long-running series Dr. Who provides numerous examples
of scientists who fit this archetype, some of which include Professor Richard
Lazarus and Davros, the creator of Dr. Who’s nemesis, the Daleks.
A second enduring archetype is that of the scientist as a powerless pawn
serving industry, the military, or a master evil figure. Examples include Robert
Duvall as Dr. Griffin Weir in the cloning film The 6th Day and the scientists in
Jurassic Park working under CEO John Hammond’s dinosaur cloning company
InGen.
The scientist as an eccentric, anti-social geek is the third archetype. This
scientist is so personally committed to their research that they forego families,
242
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
friends, or romantic relationships. Examples include Christopher Lloyd as the Doc
character in the Back to the Future series, the teenage boys in John Hughes’ Weird
Science who create the perfect woman, or Val Kilmer and his fellow post-docs in
Real Genius who work in the lab of a sinister professor seeking to control Star
Wars-like anti-missile technology.
The fourth archetype, the aforementioned character increasingly portrayed
in current entertainment, is that of the scientist in a lead role as the action hero
and protagonist. These figures also often serve as the voice and force for ethical
decisions and virtue. Examples include Dr. Alan Grant as the main protagonist
in the Jurassic Park series, Spock in the new version of Star Trek who takes
on leading man and action hero qualities to rival Captain Kirk, Jodie Foster’s
character in Contact, Sigourney Weaver’s character in Avatar, Dennis Quaid as the
climate scientist hero in The Day After Tomorrow, Chiwetel Ejiofor as the geologist
hero in 2012, William Peterson as Gil Grissom in the original CSI television series,
Emily Deschanel as Dr. Temperance Brennan in the Bones television series, and
Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark in the Iron Man films.
Closely linked to this archetype is the increasingly common role of the
scientist as a trusted, loyal, and brainy “sidekick,” a character who supports the
main hero in a film as a friend or compatriot, and who often does the scientific
“digging” and “uncovering” that leads to important revelations or discoveries
that advance the cause of the hero. Examples include Leonard Nimoy’s Spock
in the original Star Trek series, Gillian Anderson as Dana Scully in The X-Files,
Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, inventor and CEO of Wayne Industries in the
recent Christopher Nolan directed Batman films, and the supporting casts of crime
scientists in the popular television series’ CSI and Bones.
There also seems to be an emerging archetype wherein scientists are depicted
as ambiguous protagonists. This archetype depicts scientists prominently, but in
ways that highlight the multi-dimensionalty of their personalities. Gaius Baltar
from the reimagined Battlestar Galactica TV series is an excellent example.
Baltar is often depicted as a deeply-troubled, narcissistic scientist who is capable
of egregious ethical lapses and destructive behaviors. The Baltar character,
however, also frequently demonstrates intense empathy, moral sensitivity, and
contempt for his questionable decisions. In this regard, this particular archetype
shows scientists as fundamentally human—capable of the good, the bad, and
everything in between.
Analyzing Images of Scientists
Still, despite evidence to the contrary, a belief in a one-sided negative portrayal
of scientists persists, and is promoted in recent commentaries and books, usually
to reinforce a narrative about an alleged loss of standing for science in society. An
example is the chapter discussing entertainment media in Chris Mooney and Sheril
Kirshenbaum’s Unscientific America: How Scientific Uncertainty Threatens Our
Future (5).
The authors argue that the negative stereotype of a mad, dysfunctional
scientist still dominants Hollywood, citing as evidence a quantitative study
of portrayals from the mid-1980s by former University of Pennsylvania
243
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
communication researcher George Gerbner and colleagues (6) and an analysis by
Stanley Goldman (1) from the same time period. The Gerbner study showed that
in comparison to other occupations, scientists featured in primetime television
suffered a higher ratio of negative stereotypes and were more likely to be victims
of violence.
Yet subsequent research documents a shift towards the positive for the image
of scientists over the past two decades. In a 1999 report to the U.S. Department of
Commerce, Gerbner and colleagues updated their analysis, concluding that based
on data collected during the mid-1990s, "there is no basis to claim that any kind
of systematic negative portrayal of scientists exists. Changes have occurred in
Hollywood since the time of our initial study, which found scientists to be typically
evil, disturbed, sexually dysfunctional villains…this is no longer the case” (7).
More recent analysis of TV content confirms this trend. A study of primetime
content appearing between 2000 and 2008 replicates Gerbner’s methodology and
finds that scientists—in accord with their professional distribution among the
general population—remain relatively rare characters in the TV world (just 1%
of characters are scientists), but when they are shown, it is almost exclusively
in a positive light. Of the scientist characters, 81% were characterized as good
with some of the best known examples being Gil Grissom from CSI and Leonard
Hofstadter from The Big Bang Theory, 26% as both good and bad such as Dr.
Gaius Baltar from Battlestar Galactica, and just 3% as bad which includes
examples such as villainous David Robert Jones.
Depictions of Science
Apart from the image of scientists, a number of historical and critical analyses
conclude that science in general is often depicted as mysterious, magical, or
dangerous with both positive and negative consequences for society. Depictions
tend to break down along two lines. According to the first standard portrayal,
scientists lose control of their research or their technology, to the detriment of
society; as a consequence scientific achievement and technology are distrusted
because of possible unforeseen ramifications. This is the Jurassic Park vision
of genetic engineering, and the vision of science offered in The X-Files, the
reimagined Battlestar Galactica, in horror movies, and sometimes in comic books
turned into movies such as The Incredible Hulk or Spider Man.
In the second portrayal, science and technology are shown as truthful, sacred
endeavors. This is the Star Trek vision of social progress through science, the CSI
vision of science as glamorous crime solving and a force for justice, and the PBS
NOVA and An Inconvenient Truth vision of glorified, overly certain science (2, 3,
9–11).
Not all scholars, however, view presentations such as those in The X-Files
as negative, and instead see these portrayals as valuable complements to
programming such as NOVA or Star Trek that might, in the words of the editors
at Nature, dogmatically present scientists “as truth’s ultimate custodian” (12).
For example, Dhingra observes that The X-Files emphasizes several important
realities about science, namely that it is uncertain, sometimes offers few clearly
defined answers, and can often be interpreted in multiple ways (13).
244
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
Audience Perceptions
Analyses of how science and scientists are represented in film and television
are valuable because they help us understand how these portrayals influence
perceptions of science among the public. Entertainment media comprise the
dominant source of information for the public about science and are an integral
part of the social context by which the public judges and makes decisions relative
to debates and controversies. For students and adults, entertainment media also
likely pre-shape the impressions, views, knowledge, and orientations that they
bring to school-based and informal learning settings such as museums or science
centers or to reading about policy-debates or events in the news.
Despite concern about this topic within the scientific community, few studies
have addressed directly how the image of scientists in film and television impact
adult stereotypes about scientists. A study by Losh, however, does provide indirect
evidence (14). As entertainment portrayals have shifted since the 1990s from more
negative archetypes to more positive hero portrayals, so have the stereotypes held
by adult audiences. The study concludes that in comparison to 1985, American
adults in 2002 were far less likely to hold negative stereotypes about scientists and
were much more likely to believe that a career in science was a desirable choice
for their children or for themselves.
Though evidence on the direct connection to stereotypes is limited, a series
of studies have considered how patterns of television viewing are connected
to generalized perceptions of science, either in terms of beliefs relating to
reservations about the impact of science on society or belief in the promise
of science to improve life and society. Most Americans simultaneously hold
both mental models. Depending, for example, on how issues such as stem cell
research or nanotechnology are framed in fictionalized programming, in news
coverage, by opinion-leaders, and in personal conversations, one or the other
model—reservations or promise—can become activated, influencing public
evaluations of the issue (3, 8, 15). As discussed in the previous section, these
mental models also map closely to the dominant narratives told about science in
entertainment, as either a force out-of-control to the detriment of society; or as a
glamorous tool for societal improvement and justice.
Viewing Science As Portrayed on TV
Studies examining the connection between public beliefs about science and
entertainment media use have been conducted using analysis of cross-sectional,
nationally representative public opinion surveys. These efforts have been
predominately guided by a body of work in the field of communication called
cultivation theory. This research approach hypothesizes that heavy viewers of
television will be more likely to hold conceptions of the world consistent with what
is seen on television than individuals who view television less frequently (16).
In these studies, differences in perceptions are looked at across variations in
frequency of general entertainment TV viewing along with the viewing of specific
TV genres such as science fiction programming. Education, age, gender, values,
245
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
race, science knowledge, and other background factors are statistically controlled
in an attempt to identify the unique relationship between TV viewing and beliefs.
During the 1980s, studies done by Gerbner and colleagues (6, 17, 18)
represent the first research on the relationship between television viewing and
attitudes toward science. This work found that heavy television viewing was
associated with more negative views of scientists and new technologies, more
willingness to place restrictions on science, a tendency to think science makes life
change too fast, an increased anxiety about science, and an erosion of appreciation
for the benefits of science.
Yet consider that in two recent survey-based studies conducted during the
2000s, heavier viewers of entertainment television held stronger reservations
about the impact of science on society but they were also more likely to score
higher on belief in science as contributing to societal progress. These findings
suggest that the general influence of TV viewing reflects the dual imagery of
science in entertainment. Forms of TV use are also linked to public knowledge.
Heavier entertainment viewers tend to be less knowledgeable about science,
since entertainment use likely displaces other media behaviors such as newspaper
reading, online news or blog reading, or documentary TV viewing (3, 8). But not
all entertainment programming has been found to have the same effects. Heavier
viewers of science fiction programs, tend to be more positive in their views of
biomedical research (15), agricultural biotechnology (19), and science more
generally (8, 20).
These studies demonstrate how exposure to unique genres of televised
entertainment programming can cultivate different attitudes toward science.
The studies also compel additional explanation and exploration relative to the
relationship between entertainment television and science. Nisbet and Goidel,
for example, raise two possible factors explaining the direct influence of science
fiction television on evaluations of stem cell research and therapeutic cloning (15).
First, the science fiction audience is by nature strongly enthusiastic about science,
meaning that their viewing habits capture an underlying natural support for
science. Repetitive viewing of science fiction simply strengthens this orientation,
further cultivating an audience naturally receptive to new innovations in science.
Yet as the authors describe, the analysis controlled for generalized views about
science, which should account for at least some of this underlying predisposition.
A second possible factor suggested by the authors was that by familiarizing
themselves with the moral dimensions of human genetic engineering through
TV and film portrayals, audiences may assuage some of their reservations about
the technology. In part, science fiction TV viewing may in fact desensitize an
audiences’ natural “yuck factor,” shielding viewers from the influence of some of
the more dramatic claims made by political opponents of stem cell research.
Not only do effects tend to differ by entertainment genre, but they also
vary by the background of the audience member. In a 2011 survey study, Dudo
and colleagues, for example, observe that heavy entertainment TV use among
Americans without college science experience is linked to a stronger belief in the
promise of science (8). Conversely, heavy entertainment use among Americans
with college science experience is linked to stronger reservations about science.
The reason for these differences, however, remains unclear. Similarly, when
246
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
focus groups are used to prompt audiences to think more deliberatively about
entertainment portrayals of issues such as genetics, personal experience and
social background factors are observed to alter how respondents draw upon
these portrayals to arrive at judgments about the social implications of genetics
(21). Recent research also has shown that watching religious TV programming
contributes to religious individuals’ negative perceptions of science (20).
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
The CSI Effect
Perhaps one of the most widely presumed influences of entertainment is the
so-called “CSI effect,” the alleged influence that long running syndicated TV series
Crime Scene Investigation (CSI) has on public perceptions about forensic science
and its role in jurisprudence. For example, CSI has commonly been associated
with increased demand for DNA evidence in the courtroom (22, 23) and with
burgeoning enrollment in collegiate forensic science departments (24, 25).
In one of the few studies empirically investigating the CSI effect, Brewer
and Ley find that overall TV viewing was correlated with stronger belief in the
reliability of DNA evidence, greater weight attached to the absence of DNA
evidence in a case, and support for a national DNA databank (26). The survey
analysis also included an experimental design. In the half of the sample that
were presented first with questions asking them to reflect about their media use
and then to evaluate a series of DNA questions, this process of thinking about
what programs they watch primed respondents to give greater weight to DNA
evidence in court cases. In short, for these respondents, when thoughts about
TV programming were made more salient, their answers about real-world court
decisions were more likely to be in line with TV portrayals of crime solving.
Conclusion
Overall, the studies and findings reviewed offer important context for the
longstanding concerns voiced by scientists about the image of their profession
and work in Hollywood productions. Contrary to the fears of many scientists, this
research indicates that over the past decade portrayals of scientists have become
more complex. Scientists in 21st century entertainment programming are more
frequently imbued with intricate, multi-faceted personalities and are more often
being depicted as “hero” protagonists. Furthermore, as these findings reviewed in
this chapter suggest, entertainment TV viewing often strengthens beliefs in the
promise of science and support for quickly evolving fields like biotechnology
or nanotechnology. Overall, this growing body of research does not support
commonplace assumptions that entertainment media are hostile toward science.
This is not to say that members of the scientific community should not strive
to enhance the presence of their profession in Hollywood. Indeed, the Science
and Entertainment Exchange, a program created by the National Academy of
Sciences, was recently created to help bolster collaborative partnerships between
entertainment producers and scientists. We believe that such efforts, however,
247
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
would be best served to operate from an understanding of the Hollywood-Science
relationship that is more sophisticated than the "hostile media" trope and that
instead seek to capitalize on some of the encouraging trends reviewed in this
chapter.
References
1.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Goldman, S. L. Images of technology in popular films: Discussion and
filmography. Sci., Technol., Hum. Values 1989, 14 (3), 275–301.
Kirby, D. A. Hollywood Knowledge: Communication Between Scientific
and Entertainment Cultures. In Communicating Science in Social Contexts;
Cheng D., et al., Eds.; Springer: New York, 2008; pp 165−181.
Nisbet, M. C.; Scheufele, D. A.; Shanahan, J.; Moy, P.; Brossard, D.;
Lewenstein, B. V. Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects
model for public perceptions of science and technology. Commun. Res.
2002, 29 (5), 584–608.
Perkowitz, S. Hollywood Science: Movies, Science, and the End of the World;
Columbia University Press: New York, 2007.
Mooney, C.; Kirshenbaum, S. Unscientific America: How Scientific Illiteracy
Threatens our Future; Basic Books: New York, 2009.
Gerbner, G.; Gross, L.; Morgan, M.; Signorielli, N. Science and Television;
Research Report; Annenberg School for Communication: Philadelphia, PA,
1985.
Gerbner, G.; Linson, B. Images of Scientists in Prime Time Television; U.S.
Department of Commerce: Washington, DC, 1999
Dudo, A.; Brossard, D.; Shanahan, J.; Scheufele, D. A.; Morgan, M.;
Signorielli, N. Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends
in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science.
Commun. Res. 2011, 48 (6), 754–777.
Collins, H. M. Certainty and the public understanding of science: Science on
television. Social Stud. Sci. 1987, 17 (4), 689–713.
Hornig, S. Television’s Nova and the construction of scientific truth. Crit.
Stud. Mass Commun. 1987, 7 (1), 11–23.
Ley, B. L.; Jankowski, N.; Brewer, P. R. Investigating CSI: Portrayals of
DNA testing on a forensic crime show and their potential effects. Public
Understanding Sci. 2012, 21, 51–67.
Opinion. How not to respond to The X-Files. Nature 1998, 394, 815.
Dhingra, K. Thinking about television science: How students understand the
nature of science from different program genres. J. Res. Sci. Teach. 2003,
40 (2), 234–256.
Losh, S. C. Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983
and 2001. Public Understanding Sci. 2012, 19 (3), 372–382.
Nisbet, M. C.; Goidel, R. K. Understanding citizen perceptions of science
controversy: Bridging the ethnographic-survey research divide. Public
Understanding Sci. 2007, 16 (4), 421–440.
248
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.
Downloaded by AMERICAN UNIV on March 12, 2014 | http://pubs.acs.org
Publication Date (Web): September 3, 2013 | doi: 10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
16. Morgan, M.; Shanahan, J.; Signorielli, N. Growing Up with Television:
Cultivation Processes. In Media Effects: Advances in Theories and
Research, 3rd ed.; Bryant, J., Oliver, M. B., Eds.; Routledge: New York,
2009; pp 34−49.
17. Gerbner, G.; Gross, L.; Morgan, M.; Signorielli, N. Scientists on the TV
Screen. Society 1981, 18, 41–44.
18. Gerbner, G. Science on television: How it affects public conceptions. Issues
Sci. Technol. 1987, 3, 109–115.
19. Besley, J. C.; Shanahan, J. Media attention and exposure in relation to support
for agricultural biotechnology. Sci. Commun. 2005, 26 (4), 347–367.
20. Brossard, D.; Dudo, A. Cultivation of Science Attitudes. In The Cultivation
Differential: State of the Art Research in Cultivation Theory; Shanahan, J.,
Morgan, M., Signorielli, N., Eds.; Peter Lang: Bern, Switzerland, 2012; pp
120−143.
21. Bates, B. R. Public culture and public understanding of genetics: A focus
group study. Public Understanding Sci. 2005, 14 (1), 47–65.
22. Houck, M. M. CSI: Reality. Sci. Am. 2006, 295 (1), 84–89.
23. Pratt, T. C.; Gaffney, M. J.; Lovrich, N. P.; Johnson, C. L. This isn’t CSI:
Estimating the national backlog of forensic DNA cases and the barriers
associated with case processing. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 2006, 17 (1),
32–47.
24. Cole, S. A.; Dioso-Villa, R. CSI and its effects: Media, juries, and the burden
of proof. New Engl. Law Rev. 2007, 41 (3), 435–469.
25. Lee, A. The CSI effect: TV’s impact on the future of forensic science. Triple
Helix 2007, 7, 22–23.
26. Brewer, P. R.; Ley, B. L. Media use and public perceptions of DNA evidence.
Sci. Commun. 2010, 32 (1), 93–117.
249
In Hollywood Chemistry; Nelson, D., et al.;
ACS Symposium Series; American Chemical Society: Washington, DC, 2013.