2

Populist attitudes towards politics and science: How do they differ?
2023 — Political Research Exchange, 5(1).
Jakob-Moritz Eberl, Robert A. Huber, Niels G. Mede, Esther Greussing
PDF Code DOI Twitter thread
Populist attitudes towards politics and science: How do they differ?
Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland
2022 — PLoS One, 17(8).
Niels G. Mede, Mike S. Schäfer, Julia Metag, Kira Klinger
PDF Code Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
Who supports science-related populism? A nationally representative survey on the prevalence and explanatory factors of populist attitudes toward science in Switzerland
Science communication in the face of skepticism, populism, and ignorance: What Don’t Look Up tells us about science denial — and what it doesn’t
2022 — Journal of Science Communication, 21(5), C05.
Niels G. Mede
PDF DOI Twitter thread
Science communication in the face of skepticism, populism, and ignorance: What Don’t Look Up tells us about science denial — and what it doesn’t
An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany
2022 — PLoS One, 17(2).
Rainer Bromme, Niels G. Mede, Eva Thomm, Bastian Kremer, Ricarda Ziegler
PDF Code Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
An anchor in troubled times: Trust in science before and within the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany
Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: Global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes
2022 — Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. Advance online publication.
Niels G. Mede
PDF Code Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
Legacy media as inhibitors and drivers of public reservations against science: Global survey evidence on the link between media use and anti-science attitudes
Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data
2022 — Public Understanding of Science, 31(5), 553–562.
Kira Klinger, Julia Metag, Mike S. Schäfer, Tobias Füchslin, Niels G. Mede
PDF DOI Twitter thread Supplements
Are science communication audiences becoming more critical? Reconstructing migration between audience segments based on Swiss panel data
Predicting public trust in science: The role of basic orientations toward science, perceived trustworthiness of scientists, and experiences with science
2022 — Frontiers in Communication. Advance online publication.
Florian Wintterlin, Friederike Hendriks, Niels G. Mede, Rainer Bromme, Julia Metag, Mike S. Schäfer
PDF Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
Predicting public trust in science: The role of basic orientations toward science, perceived trustworthiness of scientists, and experiences with science
Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak
2022 — Public Understanding of Science, 31(2), 211–222.
Niels G. Mede, Mike S. Schäfer
PDF Code Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
Science-related populism declining during the COVID-19 pandemic: A panel survey of the Swiss population before and after the Coronavirus outbreak
The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation
2021 — International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 33(2), 273–293.
Niels G. Mede, Mike S. Schäfer, Tobias Füchslin
PDF Dataset DOI Twitter thread Supplements
The SciPop Scale for measuring science-related populist attitudes in surveys: Development, test, and validation
The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research
2021 — Public Understanding of Science, 30(1), 91–102.
Niels G. Mede, Mike S. Schäfer, Ricarda Ziegler, Markus Weißkopf
PDF Code Dataset DOI Media coverage Twitter thread Supplements
The “replication crisis” in the public eye: Germans’ awareness and perceptions of the (ir)reproducibility of scientific research