References

1. Cohen J. Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media
charac- ters. Mass Communication and Society. 2001; 4(3):245–64. https://doi.org/10.1207/
S15327825MCS0403_01 


2. Dahlstrom MF. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert
audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America. 2014; 111:13614– 20. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111 PMID: 25225368 


3. Braddock K, Dillard JP. Meta-analytic evidence for the persuasive effect of narratives on beliefs,
atti- tudes, intentions, and behaviors. Communication Monographs. 2016; 83(4):446–67.
https://doi.org/10. 1080/03637751.2015.1128555 


4. Story Collider. Story Collider: Stories about science 2018 [cited 2018 May 5].
https://www.storycollider. org/. 


5. National Academies of Sciences E, Medicine. Using narrative and data to communicate the value
of sci- ence: Proceedings of a workshop—in brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press; 2017. 12 p. 


6. Schank RC, Abelson R. Knowledge and memory: The real story. In: Schank R, Abelson R, editors.
Knowledge and memory: The real story. Hilldale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1995. p.
1–86. 


7. Bruner J. Actual minds, possible worlds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 1986. 222 p. 


8. Kernaghan K, Kuruvilla PK. Merit and motivation: public personnel management in Canada.
Canadian 
Public Administration. 1982; 25(4):696–712. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-
7121.1982.tb02102.x 


9. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Communicating science effectively:

A 
research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017. 152 p. 


10. Dahlstrom MF, Ho SS. Ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science.
Science Com- 
munication. 2012; 34(5):592–617.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454597 


11. Kahan DM, Peters E, Wittlin M, Slovic P, Ouellette LL, Braman D, et al. The polarizing impact
of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change.
2012; 2:732. https:// doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547 


12. Scheufele DA. Science communication as political communication. Proceedings of the

National Acad- emy of Sciences. 2014; 111(Supplement 4):13585–92.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317516111 PMID: 25225389 


13. National Science Board. Science and Engineering Indicators 2018 2018 [cited 2018 May 5].
https:// www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/. 


14. Ioannidis JPA. Statistical biases in science communication: What we know about them and
how they can be addressed. In: Jamieson KH, Kahan DM, Scheufele DA, editors. The Oxford
Handbook of the Science of Science Communication. New York: Oxford University Press;
 2017. p. 103–10. 


15. Munafò MR, Nosek BA, Bishop DVM, Button KS, Chambers CD, du Sert NP, et al. A
manifesto for reproducible science. Nature Human Behaviour. 2017; 1:0021.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-016- 0021 


16. Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2005; 2(8):e124.
https://doi. org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 PMID: 16060722 


17. Allison DB, Pavela G, Oransky I. Reasonable versus unreasonable doubt. American
Scientist. 2018; 106(2):84–7.