IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0148867.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement

Author

Listed:
  • Anthony Dudo
  • John C Besley

Abstract

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists’ report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public’s trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.

Suggested Citation

  • Anthony Dudo & John C Besley, 2016. "Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(2), pages 1-18, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148867
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0148867&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mutz, Diana C. & Reeves, Byron, 2005. "The New Videomalaise: Effects of Televised Incivility on Political Trust," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 99(1), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Ajzen, Icek, 1991. "The theory of planned behavior," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 179-211, December.
    3. John Durant, 1999. "Participatory technology assessment and the democratic model of the public understanding of science," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 26(5), pages 313-319, October.
    4. Teresa Myers & Matthew Nisbet & Edward Maibach & Anthony Leiserowitz, 2012. "A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 113(3), pages 1105-1112, August.
    5. Deborah Jordan Brooks & John G. Geer, 2007. "Beyond Negativity: The Effects of Incivility on the Electorate," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(1), pages 1-16, January.
    6. Dan M. Kahan & Hank Jenkins-Smith & Donald Braman, 2011. "Cultural cognition of scientific consensus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(2), pages 147-174, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John C Besley & Kathryn O’Hara & Anthony Dudo, 2019. "Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, October.
    2. Kaisu Koivumäki & Timo Koivumäki & Erkki Karvonen, 2020. "“On Social Media Science Seems to Be More Human”: Exploring Researchers as Digital Science Communicators," Media and Communication, Cogitatio Press, vol. 8(2), pages 425-439.
    3. Matthew S. VanDyke & Andy J. King, 2018. "Using the CAUSE Model to Understand Public Communication about Water Risks: Perspectives from Texas Groundwater District Officials on Drought and Availability," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(7), pages 1378-1389, July.
    4. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    5. Mónica García-Melón & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Hannia Gonzalez-Urango & Carmen Corona-Sobrino, 2022. "Adapting RRI public engagement indicators to the Spanish scientific and innovation context: a participatory methodology based on AHP and content analysis," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(4), pages 1483-1512, December.
    6. Hui Chen & Noriko Hara & Clinton McKay, 2021. "Investigating mediated public engagement with science on the “science” subreddit: From the participants’ perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-22, April.
    7. Paige Brown Jarreau & Imogene A Cancellare & Becky J Carmichael & Lance Porter & Daniel Toker & Samantha Z Yammine, 2019. "Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-23, May.
    8. Emily L Howell & Julia Nepper & Dominique Brossard & Michael A Xenos & Dietram A Scheufele, 2019. "Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(5), pages 1-20, May.
    9. Abhay S. D. Rajput & Sangeeta Sharma, 2022. "Top Indian scientists as public communicators: a survey of their perceptions, attitudes and communication behaviors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(6), pages 3167-3192, June.
    10. Adrian Rauchfleisch & Mike S Schäfer & Dario Siegen, 2021. "Beyond the ivory tower: Measuring and explaining academic engagement with journalists, politicians and industry representatives among Swiss professorss," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wolf, Ingo & Schröder, Tobias, 2019. "Connotative meanings of sustainable mobility: A segmentation approach using cultural sentiments," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 259-280.
    2. Odou, Philippe & Schill, Marie, 2020. "How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 121(C), pages 243-253.
    3. Joshua Ettinger & Peter Walton & James Painter & Thomas DiBlasi, 2021. "Climate of hope or doom and gloom? Testing the climate change hope vs. fear communications debate through online videos," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Allison M. Chatrchyan & Rachel C. Erlebacher & Nina T. Chaopricha & Joana Chan & Daniel Tobin & Shorna B. Allred, 2017. "United States agricultural stakeholder views and decisions on climate change," Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 8(5), September.
    5. Haoran Chu & Janet Z. Yang, 2020. "Risk or Efficacy? How Psychological Distance Influences Climate Change Engagement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(4), pages 758-770, April.
    6. Jay D. Hmielowski & Meredith Y. Wang & Rebecca R. Donaway, 2018. "Expanding the Political Philosophy Dimension of the RISP Model: Examining the Conditional Indirect Effects of Cultural Cognition," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 38(9), pages 1891-1903, September.
    7. Rogers, Todd & Aida, Masa, 2013. "Vote Self-Prediction Hardly Predicts Who Will Vote, and Is (Misleadingly) Unbiased," Working Paper Series rwp13-010, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    8. Philippe Odou & Marie Schill, 2020. "How anticipated emotions shape behavioral intentions to fight climate change," Post-Print hal-02929920, HAL.
    9. Rogers, Todd & Aida, Masa, 2012. "What Does "Intending to Vote" Mean?," Working Paper Series rwp12-056, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    10. Dominic Balog‐Way & Katherine McComas & John Besley, 2020. "The Evolving Field of Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(S1), pages 2240-2262, November.
    11. Kathryn T. Stevenson & M. Nils Peterson & Howard D. Bondell, 2018. "Developing a model of climate change behavior among adolescents," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 151(3), pages 589-603, December.
    12. Yannis Theocharis & Pablo Barberá & Zoltán Fazekas & Sebastian Adrian Popa, 2020. "The Dynamics of Political Incivility on Twitter," SAGE Open, , vol. 10(2), pages 21582440209, May.
    13. Maria Andersson & Ola Eriksson & Chris Von Borgstede, 2012. "The Effects of Environmental Management Systems on Source Separation in the Work and Home Settings," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 4(6), pages 1-17, June.
    14. Tran Huy Phuong & Thanh Trung Hieu, 2015. "Predictors of Entrepreneurial Intentions of Undergraduate Students in Vietnam: An Empirical Study," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 5(8), pages 46-55, August.
    15. Clara Cardone-Riportella & María José Casasola-Martinez & Isabel Feito-Ruiz, 2014. "Do Entrepreneurs Come From Venus Or Mars? Impact Of Postgraduate Studies: Gender And Family Business Background," Working Papers 14.04, Universidad Pablo de Olavide, Department of Financial Economics and Accounting (former Department of Business Administration), revised Sep 2014.
    16. Peng Cheng & Zhe Ouyang & Yang Liu, 0. "The effect of information overload on the intention of consumers to adopt electric vehicles," Transportation, Springer, vol. 0, pages 1-20.
    17. Ruijie Zhu & Guojing Zhao & Zehai Long & Yangjie Huang & Zhaoxin Huang, 2022. "Entrepreneurship or Employment? A Survey of College Students’ Sustainable Entrepreneurial Intentions," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-15, May.
    18. Alsalem, Amani & Fry, Marie-Louise & Thaichon, Park, 2020. "To donate or to waste it: Understanding posthumous organ donation attitude," Australasian marketing journal, Elsevier, vol. 28(3), pages 87-97.
    19. Pan, Jing Yu & Liu, Dahai, 2022. "Mask-wearing intentions on airplanes during COVID-19 – Application of theory of planned behavior model," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(C), pages 32-44.
    20. Benoît Lécureux & Adrien Bonnet & Ouassim Manout & Jaâfar Berrada & Louafi Bouzouina, 2022. "Acceptance of Shared Autonomous Vehicles: A Literature Review of stated choice experiments," Working Papers hal-03814947, HAL.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0148867. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.