Influence in science dialogue: Individual attitude changes as a result of dialogue between laypersons and scientists

Abstract

Dialogue as a science communication process has been idealized in both practitioner and scholarly literature. However, there is inconsistency in what is meant by dialogue, the forms it should take, and its purported consequences. Empirical research on the experienced benefits of dialogue is limited. The present study addresses this gap by examining attitudinal changes among laypeople and scientists in dialogue on the topic of human biotechnology (HBT). We found that, as a result of participation in dialogue, laypeople’s attitudes toward scientists were more positive and scientists’ and laypeople’s attitudes toward HBT tended to converge. Additionally, laypeople reported increased communicative self-efficacy after the dialogue experience. However, effects in some cases differed by dialogue format. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

Keywords

attitude change biotechnology dialogue influence self-efficacy

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allport

(1954) The Nature of Prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Ajzen

(2001) Nature and operation of attitudes. Annual Review of Psychology 52: 27–58.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York: Freeman.

Bendell

(2003) Talking for change? Reflections on effective stakeholder dialogue. In: Andriof

Waddock

Husted

Rahman

(eds) Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: Relationships, communication, reporting and performance. Sheffield: Greenleaf Publishing Limited, 53–69.

Black

(2005) Building connection while thinking together: By-products of employee training in dialogue. Western Journal of Communication 69(3): 273–92.

Bohm

(1996) On Dialogue. New York: Routledge.

Bokeno

Gantt

(2000) Dialogic mentoring. Management Communication Quarterly 14(2): 237–70.

Boster

Cruz

(2002) Persuading in the small group context. In: Dillard

Pfau

(eds) The persuasion handbook: Developments in theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 477–94.

Burson

(2002) Finding clarity in the midst of conflict: Facilitating dialogue and skilfull discussion using a model from the Quaker tradition. Group Facilitation 4(1): 23–9.

10.

Campbell

Fairey

(1989) Informational and normative routes to conformity: The effect of faction size as a function of norm extremity and attention to the stimulus. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57(3): 457–68.

11.

Cohen

(1988) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

12.

Cunningham-Burley

(2006) Public knowledge and public trust. Community Genetics 9(3): 204–10.

13.

Cuppen

Hisschemöller

Midden

(2009) Bias in the exchange of arguments: The case of scientists’ evaluation of lay viewpoints on GM food. Public Understanding of Science 18(5): 591–606.

14.

Davies

(2009) Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science. Science as Culture 18(4): 397–416.

15.

Davies

McCallie

Simonsson

Lehr

Duensing

(2009) Discussing dialogue: Perspectives on the value of science dialogue events that do not inform policy’ Public Understanding of Science 18(3): 338–53.

16.

Deutsch

(1999) A personal perspective on the development of social psychology in the twentieth century. In: Rodriguez

Levine

(eds) Reflections on 100 Years of Experimental Social Psychology. New York: Basic Books, 1–34.

17.

Deutsch

Gerard

(1955) A study of normative and informational influences upon individual judgment. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 51(3): 629–36.

18.

Ellinor

Gerard

(1998) Dialogue: Rediscover the Transforming Power of Conversation. New York: Wiley.

19.

Grönlund

(2003) e-democracy: In search of tools and methods for effective participation. Journal of Multicriteria Decision Analysis 12(2–3): 93–100.

20.

Hipkins

Stockwell

Bolstad

Baker

(2002) Commonsense, Trust, and Science: How Patterns of Beliefs and Attitudes to Science Pose Challenges for Effective Communication. Wellington: Ministry of Research, Science and Technology.

21.

Hollingshead

Contractor

(2002) New media and organizing at the group level. In: Lievrouw

Livingstone

(eds) The Handbook of New Media. London: Sage, 221–35.

22.

Huitema

Kerkhof

M. v. d

Pesch

(2007) The nature of the beast: Are citizens’ juries deliberative or pluralist? Policy Sciences 40(4): 287–311.

23.

Isaacs

(1999) Dialogue and the Art of Thinking Together. New York: Currency Doubleday.

24.

Kenyon

(2005) A critical review of citizens’ juries: How useful are they in facilitating public participation in the EU water framework directive? Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 48(3): 431–43.

25.

Kerr

Cunningham-Burley

Tutton

(2007) Shifting subject positions: Experts and lay people in public dialogue. Social Studies of Science 37(3): 385–411.

26.

Ketrow

(1999) Nonverbal aspects of group communication. In: Frey

Gouran

Poole

(eds) Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 251–87.

27.

Kinnear

Gray

(2006) SPSS 14 Made Simple. Hove: Psychology Press.

28.

Koesten

Miller

Hummert

(2002) Family communication, self-efficacy, and white female adolescents’ risk behavior. Journal of Family Communication 2: 7–27.

29.

Lindskold

Betz

Walters

(1986) Transforming competitive or cooperative climates. Journal of Conflict 30(1): 99–114.

30.

Luskin

Fishkin

Iyengar

(2006) Considered Opinions on U.S. Foreign Policy: Evidence from Online and Face-to-face Deliberative Polling. San Francisco, CA: The Center for Deliberative Democracy.

31.

Meyers

Brashers

(1999) Influence processes in group interaction. In Frey

(ed.) The Handbook of Group Communication Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 288–312.

32.

Mullen

(1991) Group composition, salience, and cognitive representations: The phenomenology of being in a group. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 27(4): 297–323.

33.

Nagda

(2006) Breaking barriers, crossing borders, building bridges: Communication processes in intergroup dialogues. Journal of Social Issues 62(3): 553–76.

34.

Pettigrew

Tropp

(2006) A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90(5): 751–83.

35.

Phillips

(2009) Analysing the dialogic turn in the communication of research-based knowledge: An exploration of the tensions in collaborative research. Public Understanding of Science OnlineFirst: 1–21. Available at: pus.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/08/18/0963662509340092.abstract

36.

Price

Nir

Cappella

(2006) Normative and informational influences in online political discussions. Communication Theory 16(1): 47–74.

37.

Renn

(1999) A model for an analytic−deliberative process in risk management. Environmental Science and Technology 33 (18): 3049–55.

38.

Rowe

Horlick-Jones

Walls

Poortinga

Pidgeon

(2008) Analysis of a normative framework for evaluating public engagement exercises: Reliability, validity and limitations. Public Understanding of Science 17(4): 419–44.

39.

Sassenberg

Moskowitz

Jacoby

Hansen

(2007) The carry-over effect of competition: The impact of competition on prejudice towards uninvolved outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(4): 529–38.

40.

van der Sanden

MCA

Meijman

(2008) Dialogue guides awareness and understanding science: An essay on different goals of dialogue leading to different science communication approaches. Public Understanding of Science 17(1): 89–103.

41.

Walls

Rogers-Hayden

Mohr

O’Riordan

(2005) Seeking citizens’ views on GM crops: Experiences from the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. Environment 47(7): 22–37.

42.

Weber

Kopelman

Messick

(2004) A conceptual review of decision making in social dilemmas: Applying a logic of appropriateness. Personality and Social Psychology Review 8(3): 281–307.

43.

Wong

Hong

(2005) Dynamic influences of culture on cooperation in the prisoner’s dilemma. Psychological Science 16(6): 429–34.

44.

Wood

Lundgren

Ouellette

Busceme

Blackstone

(1994) Minority influence: A meta-analytic review of social influence processes. Psychological Bulletin 115(3): 323–45.

45.

Wright

(2005) Researching Internet-based populations: Advantages and disadvantages of online survey research, online questionnaire authoring software packages, and web survey services. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 10. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2005.tb00259.x/abstract

46.

Wright

Street

(2007) Democracy, deliberation and design: The case of online discussion forums. New Media and Society 9(5): 849–69.

47.

Yun

Trumbo

C. W

(2000) Comparative response to a survey executed by post, e-mail, and web form. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 6. Available at: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2000.tb00112.x/abstract

48.

Zorn

Roper

Broadfoot

Weaver

(2006) Focus groups as sites of influential interaction: Building communicative self-efficacy and effecting attitudinal change in discussing controversial topics. Journal of Applied Communication Research 34(2): 115–40.