IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0224039.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics

Author

Listed:
  • John C Besley
  • Kathryn O’Hara
  • Anthony Dudo

Abstract

Strategic science communicators need to select tactics that can help them achieve both their short-term communication objectives and long-term behavioral goals. However, little previous research has sought to develop theory aimed at understanding what makes it more likely that a communicator will prioritize specific communication tactics. The current study aims to advance the development of a theory of strategic science communication as planned behavior based on the Integrated Behavioral Model. It does so in the context of exploring Canadian scientists’ self-reported willingness to prioritize six different tactics as a function of attitudinal, normative, and efficacy beliefs. The results suggest that scientists’ beliefs about ethicality, norms, response efficacy, and self-efficacy, are all meaningful predictors of willingness to prioritize specific tactics. Differences between scientists in terms of demographics and related variables provide only limited benefit in predicting such willingness.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0224039
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0224039&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0224039?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. Shupei Yuan & John C. Besley & Chen Lou, 2018. "Does being a jerk work? Examining the effect of aggressive risk communication in the context of science blogs," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 502-520, April.
    2. Rajagopal, 2015. "Reasoned Action and Planned Behavior," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: The Butterfly Effect in Competitive Markets, chapter 2, pages 30-65, Palgrave Macmillan.
    3. 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.
    4. Kurt Neuwirth & Sharon Dunwoody & Robert J. Griffin, 2000. "Protection Motivation and Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(5), pages 721-734, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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.
    2. D. G. Webster & Semra A. Aytur & Mark Axelrod & Robyn S. Wilson & Joseph A. Hamm & Linda Sayed & Amber L. Pearson & Pedro Henrique C. Torres & Alero Akporiaye & Oran Young, 2022. "Learning from the Past: Pandemics and the Governance Treadmill," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(6), pages 1-26, March.
    3. Michael K. Lindell & Seong Nam Hwang, 2008. "Households' Perceived Personal Risk and Responses in a Multihazard Environment," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 28(2), pages 539-556, April.
    4. René van Bavel & Nuria Rodríguez-Priego, 2016. "Nudging Online Security Behaviour with Warning Messages: Results from an Online Experiment," JRC Research Reports JRC103223, Joint Research Centre.
    5. Jan M. Gutteling & Peter W. de Vries, 2017. "Determinants of Seeking and Avoiding Risk‐Related Information in Times of Crisis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(1), pages 27-39, January.
    6. Ying Zhu & Xiaowei Wen & May Chu & Gongliang Zhang & Xuefan Liu, 2021. "Consumers’ Food Safety Risk Communication on Social Media Following the Suan Tang Zi Accident: An Extended Protection Motivation Theory Perspective," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-19, July.
    7. Alessandra Allini & Luca Ferri & Marco Maffei & Annamaria Zampella, 2017. "The Effect of Perceived Corruption on Entrepreneurial Intention: Evidence from Italy," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 75-86, June.
    8. Raul P. Lejano & Muhammad Saidur Rahman & Laila Kabir, 2020. "Risk Communication for Empowerment: Interventions in a Rohingya Refugee Settlement," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(11), pages 2360-2372, November.
    9. 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 professors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(5), pages 1-20, May.
    10. Sreen, Naman & Purbey, Shankar & Sadarangani, Pradip, 2018. "Impact of culture, behavior and gender on green purchase intention," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 177-189.
    11. repec:plo:pone00:0171818 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. 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.
    13. Reeko Watanabe & Tsunemi Watanabe, 2020. "Does Haze Drive Pro-Environmental and Energy Conservation Behaviors? Evidence from the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Area in China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Shasha Li & Guofang Zhai & Shutian Zhou & Chenjing Fan & Yunqing Wu & Chongqiang Ren, 2017. "Insight into the Earthquake Risk Information Seeking Behavior of the Victims: Evidence from Songyuan, China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-16, March.
    15. Michal Titko & Jozef Ristvej, 2020. "Assessing Importance of Disaster Preparedness Factors for Sustainable Disaster Risk Management: The Case of the Slovak Republic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(21), pages 1-20, November.
    16. 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.
    17. Zhu, Alex Yue Feng, 2019. "School financial education and parental financial socialization: Findings from a sample of Hong Kong adolescents," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    18. Yoshihiko Kobayashi & Kuriko Kudo & Toshiya Kobayashi & Hiroko Kinoshita & HyunJung Bang & Hiroshi Ito & Akihiro Kishimura & Yusuke Matsumoto & Masato Miwa & Motoko Unoki & Tamaki Yoshioka, 2025. "Low awareness but high willingness to engage in science communication: a cross-disciplinary survey study in a Japanese University," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 130(3), pages 1357-1370, March.
    19. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Paula B. Repetto & Pamela C. Cisternas & Javiera V. Castañeda, 2021. "Factors Influencing the Adoption of COVID-19 Preventive Behaviors in Chile," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-13, May.
    20. Francesco Testa & Gaia Pretner & Roberta Iovino & Guia Bianchi & Sara Tessitore & Fabio Iraldo, 2021. "Drivers to green consumption: a systematic review," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(4), pages 4826-4880, April.
    21. Alraja, Mansour, 2022. "Frontline healthcare providers’ behavioural intention to Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled healthcare applications: A gender-based, cross-generational study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 174(C).

    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:pone00:0224039. 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.