Scholars have not examined public views of scientific motivations directly, despite scientific authority implications. A US representative sample rated 11 motivations both descriptively (they do motivate scientists’ work) and normatively (they should motivate scientists) for scientists employed by federal government agency, large business corporation, advocacy group (nonprofit seeking to influence policy), or university. Descriptive and normative ratings fell into extrinsic (money, fame, power, being liked, helping employer) and intrinsic (do good science, enjoy challenge, helping society and others) motivation factors; being independent and gaining respect were outliers. People saw intrinsic motivations as more common, but wanted intrinsic motivations to dominate extrinsic ones even more. Despite a few differences for extrinsic-motivation ratings, the lay public tended to see scientific work as similarly motivated regardless of the employer. Variance in perceived science motivations was explained by scientific beliefs (positivism, credibility) and knowledge (of facts and scientific reasoning), complemented by political ideology and religiosity.
AllumNCSturgisPTabouraziDBrunton-SmithI (2008) Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Understanding of Science17: 35–54.
2.
BarbutoJESchollRW (1998) Motivation source inventory: Development and validation of new scales to measure an integrative taxonomy of motivation. Psychological Reports82: 1011–1022.
3.
BesleyJC (2018) The National Science Foundation’s science and technology survey and support for science funding, 2006-2014. Public Understanding of Science27: 94–109.
4.
BesleyJCMcCrightAMZahryNRElliottKCKaminskiNEMartinJD (2017) Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS ONE12: e0175643.
5.
BesleyJCZharyNRMcCrightAElliottKCKaminskiNEMartinJD (2019) Conflict of interest mitigation procedures may have little influence on the perceived procedural fairness of risk-related research. Risk Analysis39: 571–585.
6.
BoxSCotgroveS (1966) Scientific identity, occupational selection, and role strain. British Journal of Sociology17: 20–28.
7.
BrewerPRLeyBL (2013) Whose science do you believe? Explaining trust in sources of scientific information about the environment. Science Communication35: 115–137.
8.
BubelaTNisbetMCBorcheltRBrungerFCritchleyCEinsiedelE, et al. (2009) Science communication reconsidered. Nature Biotechnology27: 514–518.
CollinsHEvansR (2007) Rethinking Expertise. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
11.
CotgroveS (1970) The sociology of science and technology. British Journal of Sociology21: 1–15.
12.
CritchleyCR (2008) Public opinion and trust in scientists: The role of the research context, and the perceived motivation of stem cell researchers. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 309–327.
13.
DeciELRyanRM (2000) The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination theory. Psychological Inquiry11: 227–268.
14.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBB (2019) Why do scientists disagree? Explaining and improving measures of the perceived causes of scientific disputes. PLoS ONE14(2): e0211269.
15.
DieckmannNFJohnsonBBGregoryRMayorgaMHanPKSlovicP (2015) Public perceptions of expert disagreement: Bias and incompetence or a complex and random world?Public Understanding of Science26(3): 325–338.
16.
DrummondRFischhoffB (2017) Development and validation of the scientific reasoning scale. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making30: 26–38.
17.
DunlapREMcCrightAMYaroshJ (2016) The political divide on climate change: Partisan polarization in the U.S. public widens. Environment58(5): 4–22.
18.
EllisonCGMusickMA (1995) Conservative Protestantism and public opinion toward science. Review of Religious Research36(3): 245–262.
19.
EvansJH (2013) The growing social and moral conflict between conservative Protestantism and science. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion52(2): 368–385.
20.
GagneMDeciEL (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior26: 331–362.
21.
GauchatG (2008) A test of three theories of anti-science. Sociological Focus41(4): 337–357.
22.
GauchatG (2012) Politicization of science in the public sphere: A study of public trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. American Sociological Review77: 167–187.
23.
GauchatG (2015) The political context of science in the United States: Public acceptance of evidence-based policy and science funding. Social Forces94: 723–746.
HamiltonLCHartterJSaitoK (2015) Trust in scientists on climate change and vaccines. SAGE Open5: 1–13.
26.
HargreavesILewisJSpearsT (2002) Towards a Better Mark: Science, the Public and the Media. Swindon: Economic and Social Research Council.
27.
HartmanRDieckmannNFStantsyBSprengerADeMarreeK (2017) Modeling attitudes toward science: Development and validation of a credibility of science scale (CoSS). Basic and Applied Social Psychology39: 358–371.
28.
HaynesRD (2016) Whatever happened to the “mad, bad” scientist? Overturning the stereotype. Public Understanding of Science25: 31–44.
IrwinAWynneB (Eds) (1996) Misunderstanding Science? the Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
31.
JohnsonBB (2019a) Americans’ views of cues to the relative credibility of disputing groups of scientists. Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3392532
32.
JohnsonBB (2019b) Experiments in lay cues to the relative validity of positions taken by disputing groups of scientists. Risk Analysis39: 1657–1674.
33.
JohnsonBB (2019c) Probing the role of institutional stereotypes in Americans’ evaluations of hazard-managing institutions. Journal of Risk Research. Epub ahead of print 1February. DOI: 10.1080/13669877.2019.1569095.
34.
JohnsonBBDieckmannNF (2018) Lay Americans’ views of why scientists disagree with each other. Public Understanding of Science27: 824–835.
35.
JohnsonBBDieckmannNF (2019) Lay beliefs about scientists’ relations with their employers Report no. 837. Eugene, OR: Decision Research.
36.
JohnsonBBSlovicP (1998) Lay views on uncertainty in environmental health risk assessment. Journal of Risk Research1: 261–279.
37.
KajanneAPirttila-BackmanA-M (1999) Laypeople’s viewpoints about the reasons for expert controversy regarding food additives. Public Understanding of Science8: 303–315.
38.
KotcherJEMyersTAVragaEKStenhouseNMaibachEW (2017) Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication11: 415–429.
39.
LachDListPSteelBShindlerB (2003) Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decision making: A regional study. BioScience53: 170–178.
40.
LamA (2011) What motivates academic scientists to engage in research commercialization: “Gold,” “ribbon” or “puzzle”?Research Policy40: 1354–1368.
41.
LeonardNHBeauvaisLLSchollRW (1999) Work motivation: The incorporation of self-concept-based processes. Human Relations52(8): 969–997.
42.
LysaghtTKerridgeI (2012) Rhetoric, power and legitimacy: A critical analysis of the public policy disputes surrounding stem cell research in Australia (2005–6). Public Understanding of Science21: 195–210.
43.
McCrightAMDentzmanKChartersMDietzT (2013) The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters8: 044029.
44.
MaximLMansierP (2014) How is scientific credibility affected by communicating uncertainty? The case of endocrine disrupter effects on male fertility. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment20: 201–223.
45.
MertonRK (1957) Priorities in scientific discovery: A chapter in the sociology of science. American Sociological Review22: 635–659.
46.
MertonRK (1973) The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
47.
MertonRKBarberE (1963) Sociological ambivalence. In: TiryakianEA (ed.) Sociological Theory, Values and Sociocultural Changes. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press, pp. 91–120.
48.
National Science Board (NSB) (2014) Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 (NSB 14–01). Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.
49.
National Science Foundation, National Center for Science Engineering Statistics (2015) National Survey of college graduates. Available at: https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvygrads/
50.
Pew Research Center (2009) Public Praises Science; Scientists Fault Public, Media. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for People & the Press.
51.
R Core Team (2018) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available at: https://www.R-project.org/
52.
RabinovichAMortonTA (2012) Unquestioned answers or unanswered questions: Beliefs about science guide responses to uncertainty in climate change in risk communication. Risk Analysis32: 992–1002.
53.
RoeA (1953) A psychological study of eminent psychologists and anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and physical scientists. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied67(2): 1–55.
54.
RyanJC (2004) An examination of the role of scientists’ motivations and the influence of the organizational environment on scientific research effectiveness. PhD Dissertation, Dublin City University, Dublin.
55.
RyanRMDeciEL (2000) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology25: 54–67.
56.
ShuckburghERobisonRPidgeonN (2012) Climate Science, the Public and the News Media: Summary Findings of a Survey and Focus Groups Conducted in the UK in March 2011. Swindon, UK: Living with Environmental Change.
57.
SteelBListPLachDShindlerB (2004) The role of scientists in the environmental policy process: A case study from the American West. Environmental Science and Policy7: 1–13.
58.
StephanPELevinSG (1992) Striking the Mother Lode in Science: The Importance of Age, Place, and Time. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
59.
ThommEBarzilaiSBrommeR (2017) Why do experts disagree? The role of conflict topics and epistemic perspectives in conflict explanations. Learning and Instruction52: 15–26.
60.
ThommEHentschkeJBrommeR (2015) The explaining conflicting scientific claims (ECSC) questionnaire: Measuring laypersons’ explanations for conflicts in science. Learning and Individual Differences37: 139–152.
WynneB (1989) Sheepfarming after Chernobyl: A case study in communicating scientific information. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development31: 10–39.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
