首页> 外文期刊>Social science and medicine >The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences.
【24h】

The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences.

机译:持怀疑态度的受众对同种疗法药物和实证主义科学的自相矛盾。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

A number of studies have found an association between what people see, hear and read in the mass media and their corresponding actions and beliefs. This link has been demonstrated both at the micro and at the macro levels of analysis. However, when people are asked directly about the impact of mass media they tend to deny that they are personally affected. In fact, they tend to describe themselves as critical and skeptical media consumers. The purpose of this paper is to explore this contradiction through 12 in-depth focus group discussions undertaken in Ontario, Canada in 2004. Findings from the focus group interviews confirm earlier research in that people claimed that they were not susceptible to media influence. At the same time as they said that they took information from the mass media "with a grain of salt", they articulated sophisticated and nuanced accounts of how and why they evaluated some information as good and some as bad. In general they evaluated media stories on the basis of the valuesof allopathic medicine and positivistic science. Moreover, in the context of the focus groups and their explicit comments on their skepticism, they discussed health information from the magazine articles that they were given to read (on either HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's disease, or a heart disease). Possible explanations for these paradoxical findings are discussed.
机译:许多研究发现,人们在大众媒体中看到,听到和阅读的内容与其相应的行为和信念之间存在关联。在微观和宏观分析层面均已证明了这一联系。但是,当直接向人们询问大众媒体的影响时,他们往往会否认自己受到了个人影响。实际上,他们倾向于将自己描述为关键和怀疑的媒体消费者。本文旨在通过2004年在加拿大安大略省进行的12次深入的焦点小组讨论来探讨这种矛盾。焦点小组访谈的结果证实了较早的研究,即人们声称他们不容易受到媒体的影响。他们说要从大众媒体“带着一粒盐”获取信息的同时,他们就如何以及为什么评价某些信息的好坏进行了详尽而细致的论述。通常,他们根据同种疗法药物和实证科学的价值评估媒体报道。此外,在焦点小组及其对怀疑论者的明确评论的背景下,他们讨论了他们阅读的杂志文章中的健康信息(关于艾滋病毒/艾滋病,阿尔茨海默氏病或​​心脏病)。讨论了这些悖论性发现的可能解释。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号