This study used a survey (n = 1897) of United States- and Canada-based scientists in six scientific fields to explore correlates of perceived (a) public engagement goal importance and (b) personal goal prioritization. Building on the Integrated Behavioral Model, the results suggest that scientists’ beliefs about the societal benefits of a goal (i.e. attitudes) are the most consistent predictors of goal importance ratings and personal goal prioritization. Other beliefs are also associated with personal goal prioritization, including beliefs about personal benefits, agency (i.e. self-efficacy), and to a lesser extent, social norms. The data further suggests that basic scientists have similar goals to applied scientists who were in the sample, and that there are few differences across the six fields studied. The conclusion is that proponents of specific behavioral goals may wish to focus on communicating the benefits of goals to scientists, more so than norms or efficacy.
AjzenI (2002) Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the Theory of Planned Behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32(4): 665–683.
2.
ArmitageCJConnerM (2001) Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology40: 471–499.
3.
BennettNDudoAYuanSBesleyJC (2019) Chapter 1: Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In: NewmanTP (ed.) Theory and Best Practices in Science Communication Training. London: Routledge, pp. 9–31.
4.
BesleyJCDownsMR (2024) Ecologists prioritize listening to community perspectives when they see the benefit: Norms and self-efficacy beliefs appear to have little impact. Science Communication46(4): 511–537.
5.
BesleyJCDudoA (2022) Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis42: 2584–2592.
6.
BesleyJCSchweizerP-J (2022) Risk researchers’ views about the goal of trying to ensure policymakers consider scientific evidence. Risk Analysis44(4): 786–798.
7.
BesleyJCTiffanyLA (2023) What are you assessing when you measure “trust” in scientists with a direct measure?Public Understanding of Science32(6): 709–726.
8.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanS (2018a) Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science27(6): 708–730.
9.
BesleyJCDudoAYuanSLawrenceF (2018b) Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication40(5): 559–590.
10.
BesleyJCNewmanTDudoATiffanyLA (2020) Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science29(8): 855–867.
11.
BesleyJCNewmanTPDudoATiffanyLA (2021a) American scientists’ willingness to use different communication tactics. Science Communication43(4): 486–507.
12.
BesleyJCPetermanKBlack-MaierARobertson EviaJ (2021b) The (very limited) evidence base for basic-science-specific science communication in key communication journals. Report for the Kavli Foundation as Part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/UECXN.
13.
CaliceMNBaoLBeetsBBrossardDScheufeleDAFeinsteinNW, et al. (2023) A triangulated approach for understanding scientists’ perceptions of public engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science32(3): 389–406.
14.
CanfieldKNMenezesSMatsudaSBMooreAMosley AustinANDewsburyBM, et al. (2020) Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Frontiers in Communication5: 2.
15.
ChaikenS (1980) Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology39(5): 752–766.
16.
CornwallAJewkesR (1995) What is participatory research?Social Science & Medicine41(12): 1667–1676.
17.
Crettaz von RotenF (2011) Gender differences in scientist’s public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication33(1): 52–75.
18.
DijkstraAMRoefsMMDrossaertCHC (2015) The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands: Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship. Journal of Science Communication14(2): 1–21.
19.
DudoABesleyJC (2016) Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS ONE11(2): e0148867.
20.
EntradasMBauerMWO'MuircheartaighCMarcinkowskiFOkamuraAPellegriniG, et al. (2020) Public communication by research institutes compared across countries and sciences: Building capacity for engagement or competing for visibility?PLoS ONE15(7): e0235191.
21.
EvansJSBTStanovichKE (2013) Dual-process theories of higher cognition: Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science8(3): 223–241.
22.
FinucaneMLAlhakamiASlovicPJohnsonSM (2000) The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making13(1): 1–17.
23.
FishbeinM (2009) An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In: DiClementeRJCrosbyRAKeglerMC (eds) Emerging Theories in Health Promotion Practice and Research, 2nd edn. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, pp. 215–234.
24.
FishbeinMAjzenI (2010) Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach. London: Psychology Press.
25.
FrenchDPSuttonSHenningsSJMitchellJWarehamNJGriffinS, et al. (2005) The importance of affective beliefs and attitudes in the theory of planned behavior: Predicting intention to increase physical activity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology35(9): 1824–1848.
26.
HoSSScheufeleDACorleyEA (2010) Making sense of policy choices: Understanding the roles of value predispositions, mass media, and cognitive processing in public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Journal of Nanoparticle Research12(8): 2703–2715.
27.
KentMLTaylorM (2002) Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review28(1): 21–37.
28.
KotcherJEMyersTAVragaEKStenhouseNMaibachEW (2017) Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication11(2): 415–429.
29.
LawtonRConnerMParkerD (2007) Beyond cognition: Predicting health risk behaviors from instrumental and affective beliefs. Health Psychology26(3): 259–267.
30.
LoweREvesFCarrollD (2002) The influence of affective and instrumental beliefs on exercise intentions and behavior: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology32(6): 1241–1252.
31.
McCroskeyJCTevenJJ (1999) Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs66(1): 90–103.
32.
McKasyMCacciatoreMSuLYFYeoSKO'NeilL (2020) Operationalizing science literacy: An experimental analysis of measurement [Article]. Journal of Science Communication19(4): A03.
33.
MansteadASRvan EekelenSAM (1998) Distinguishing between perceived behavioral control and self-efficacy in the domain of academic achievement intentions and behaviors. Journal of Applied Social Psychology28(15): 1375–1392.
34.
MarcinkowskiFKohringMFürstSFriedrichsmeierA (2014) Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication36(1): 56–80.
35.
Martín-SempereMJGarzón-GarcíaBRey-RochaJ (2008) Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science17(3): 349–367.
36.
MiddletonLNewmanTCateA (2022) Basic and applied science engagement: A necessary distinction or just white noise? In: Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC), Detroit, MI, 3–6 August.
37.
MontanoDEKasprzykD (2015) Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In: GlanzK (ed.) Health Behavior: Theory, Research and Practice, 5th edn. New York: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 67–96.
38.
MottaM (2019) Explaining science funding attitudes in the United States: The case for science interest. Public Understanding of Science28(2): 161–176.
39.
MyersTANisbetMCMaibachEWLeiserowitzAA (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change113(3–4): 1105–1112.
40.
NabiRL (2003) Exploring the framing effects of emotion: Do discrete emotions differentially influence information accessibility, information seeking, and policy preference?Communication Research30(2): 224–247.
41.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (2017) Communicating Science Effectively: A Research Agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
42.
National Research Council (2009) Learning Science in Informal Environments: People, Places, and Pursuits. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. Available at: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12190
43.
NewmanTPBrossardDScheufeleDAChenKQianYCateA, et al. (2021) Assessing the scholarship of public engagement with basic science. Report for the Kavli Foundation as Part of the Science Public Engagement Partnership. DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/K93CJ.
44.
PettyRECacioppoJTSchumannD (1983) Central and peripheral routes to advertising effecitiveness: The moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research10(2): 135–146.
45.
PettyREWegenerDTFabrigarLR (1997) Attitudes and attitude change. Annual Review of Psychology48: 609–647.
46.
PielkeRA (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
47.
PoliakoffEWebbTL (2007) What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication29(2): 242–263.
48.
ProchaskaJOVelicerWF (1997) The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion12(1): 38–48.
49.
RhodesNShulmanHCMcClaranN (2020) Changing norms: A meta-analytic integration of research on social norms appeals. Human Communication Research46(2-3): 161–191.
50.
RimalRNLapinskiMK (2015) A re-explication of social norms, ten years later. Communication Theory25(4): 393–409.
51.
RoseKMMarkowitzEMBrossardD (2020) Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences117(3): 1274–1276.
52.
SchoormanFDMayerRCDavisJH (2007) An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Review32(2): 344–354.
53.
SciPEP (2023) About Scipep. Science Public Engagement Partnership: The Foundation and the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science. Available at: https://scipep.org/about/
54.
ThalerRHSunsteinCR (2008) Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
TingayS (2018) Indigenous Australian artists and astrophysicists come together to communicate science and culture via art. Journal of Science Communication17(4): C02.
56.
Torres-AlberoCFernández-EsquinasMRey-RochaJMartín-SempereMJ (2011) Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science20(1): 12–25.
57.
TrenchB (2008) Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In: ChengDClaessensMGascoigneTMetcalfeJSchieleBShiS (eds) Communicating Science in Social Contexts: New Models, New Practices. Amsterdam: Springer, pp. 119–135.
58.
WeingartPJoubertM (2019) The conflation of motives of science communication: Causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication18(3): Y01.
59.
YuanSOshitaTAbiGhannamNDudoABesleyJCKohHE (2017) Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B7(4): 341–355.
60.
ZhangXChenAJinJ (2024) Chinese scientists’ mediated participation in public outreach: Multiple direct and personal norm-mediated predictors. Public Understanding of Science33: 1009–1026.
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.
