A set of parallel surveys of scientists from multiple scientific societies finds that the most consistent predictors of willingness to take part in engagement activities with the public are a belief that she or he will enjoy the experience (attitude), make a difference through engagement (response efficacy), and has the time to engage. Age, sex, scientific field, what a scientist thinks about the public, perceived personal engagement skill (self-efficacy), and what a scientist thinks about her or his colleagues (normative beliefs) are inconsistent predictors. Research may be needed to find how to shape scientists’ engagement views in ways that are both effective and acceptable.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471-499. doi:10.1348/014466601164939
5.
BentleyP.KyvikS. (2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 48-63. doi:10.1177/0963662510384461
6.
BesleyJ. C. (2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement?Science and Public Policy, 42, 201-214. doi:10.1093/scipol/scu042
7.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2017a). Scientists’ views about public engagement and science communication in the context of climate change. In NisbetM. C. (Ed.), Oxford research encyclopedia of climate science. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.013.380
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.StorksdieckM. (2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52, 199-220. doi:10.1002/tea.21186
10.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS. (2017). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662517728478
11.
BesleyJ. C.McComasK. A. (2014). Fairness, public engagement and risk communication. In ArvaiJ. L.RiversL. (Eds.), Effective risk communication (pp. 108-123). New York, NY: Routledge/Earthscan.
12.
BesleyJ. C.McCrightA. M.ZahryN. R.ElliottK. C.KaminskiN. E.MartinJ. D. (2017). Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships. PLoS One, 12, e0175643. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0175643
13.
BesleyJ. C.NisbetM. C. (2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 644-659. doi:10.1177/0963662511418743
14.
BesleyJ. C.OhS.-H. (2013). The combined impact of attention to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and environmental worldview on views about nuclear energy. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, 33, 158-171.
15.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. C. (2013). Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971-987. doi:10.1177/0963662512459315
ColquittJ. A.GreenbergJ.Zapata-PhelanC. P. (2005). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In GreenbergJ.ColquittJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational Justice (pp. 3-58). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
18.
ConnerM.ArmitageC. J. (1998). Extending the theory of planned behavior: A review and avenues for further research. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1429-1464. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01685.x
19.
Crettaz von RotenF. (2011). Gender differences in scientist’s public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33, 52-75. doi:10.1177/1075547010378658
20.
DavisR.CampbellR.HildonZ.HobbsL.MichieS. (2015). Theories of behaviour and behaviour change across the social and behavioural sciences: A scoping review. Health Psychology Review, 9, 323-344. doi:10.1080/17437199.2014.941722
21.
Delli CarpiniM. X.CookF. L.JacobsL. R. (2004). Public deliberation, discursive participation, and citizen engagement: A review of the empirical literature. Annual Review of Political Science, 7, 315-344. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630
22.
DillmanD. A.SmythJ. D.ChristianL. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
23.
DudoA. (2013). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35, 476-501. doi:10.1177/1075547012460845
24.
DudoA.BesleyJ. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLoS One, 11. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
25.
DudoA.KahlorL.AbiGhannamN.LazardA.LiangM.-C. (2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 841-844. doi:10.1038/nnano.2014.194
26.
DunwoodyS.BrossardD.DudoA. D. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86, 299-314. doi:10.1177/107769900908600203
27.
EcklundE. H.JamesS. A.LincolnA. E. (2012). How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLoS One, 7, e36240. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036240
28.
European Union. (2002). Science and society: Action plan. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.
29.
FahyD. (2015). The new celebrity scientists: Out of the lab and into the limelight. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
30.
FishbeinM. (2009). An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In DiClementeR. J.CrosbyR. A.KeglerM. C. (Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 273-279). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
32.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J. C.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77-83. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005
33.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 111, 13593-13597. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317505111
34.
GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18, 265-282. doi:10.1177/1075547097018003005
35.
GibbonsF. X.GerrardM.BlantonH.RussellD. W. (1998). Reasoned action and social reaction: Willingness and intention as independent predictors of health risk. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1164-1180. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.5.1164
36.
GrunigJ. E.GrunigL. A. (2008). Excellence theory in public relations: Past, present, and future. In ZerfassA.RulerB.SrirameshK. (Eds.), Public relations research (pp. 327-347). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
37.
HoltR. D. (2015). Why science? Why AAAS?Science, 347, 807-807. doi:10.1126/science.aaa9126
38.
JensenP. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 26-36. doi:10.1177/0963662510383632
39.
JiaH.LiuL. (2014). Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science, 23, 32-37. doi:10.1177/0963662513476404
40.
KohE. J.DunwoodyS.BrossardD.AllgaierJ. (2016). Mapping neuroscientists’ perceptions of the nature and effects of public visibility. Science Communication, 38, 170-196. doi:10.1177/1075547016635180
41.
KreimerP.LevinL.JensenP. (2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 37-47. doi:10.1177/0963662510383924
42.
KyvikS. (2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26, 288-311. doi:10.1177/1075547004273022
43.
LapinskiM. K.RimalR. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15, 127-147. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x
44.
LeshnerA. I. (2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315, 161. doi:10.1126/science.1138712
45.
LoY.-Y.PetersH. P. (2015). Taiwanese life scientists less “medialized” than their Western colleagues. Public Understanding of Science, 24, 6-22. doi:10.1177/0963662513513863
46.
MarcinkowskiF.KohringM.FürstS.FriedrichsmeierA. (2013). Organizational influence on scientists’ efforts to go public: An empirical investigation. Science Communication, 36, 56-80. doi:10.1177/1075547013494022
47.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Effective chemistry communication in informal environments. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
48.
National Research Council. (1989). Improving risk communication. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
49.
National Science Board. (2016). Science and technology: Public attitudes and public understanding. Science and Engineering Indicators. Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2016/nsb20161/#/
50.
NelkinD. (1977). Scientists and professional responsibility: The experience of American ecologists. Social Studies of Science, 7, 75-95. doi:10.1177/030631277700700110
51.
PetersH. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 110, 14102-14109. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212745110
52.
PetersH. P.BrossardD.de CheveigneS.DunwoodyS.KallfassM.MillerS.TsuchidaS. (2008). Science-media interface: It’s time to reconsider. Science Communication, 30, 266-276. doi:10.1126/science.1157780
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242-263. doi:10.1177/1075547007308009
The Royal Society. (1985). The public understanding of science (“The Bodmer Report”). London, England: Author.
57.
The Royal Society. (2006). Factors affecting science communication: A survey of scientists and engineers. London, England: Author.
58.
RödderS. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection: Public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155-177). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
59.
SharmanA.HowarthC. (2016). Climate stories: Why do climate scientists and sceptical voices participate in the climate debate?Public Understanding of Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0963662516632453
60.
Torres-AlberoC.Fernandez-EsquinasM.Rey-RochaJ.Martin-SempereM. J. (2011). Dissemination practices in the Spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science, 20, 12-25. doi:10.1177/0963662510382361
61.
TsfatiY.CohenJ.GuntherA. C. (2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33, 143-166. doi:10.1177/1075547010380385
62.
YeoS. K.BrossardD. (2016). The (changing) nature of scientist-media interactions. In Hall JamiesonK.KahanD. M.ScheufeleD. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of the science of science communication (pp. 261-272). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
63.
YzerM. C. (2012). The integrative model of behavioral prediction as a tool for designing health messages: Theory and practice. In ChoH. (Ed.), Designing messages for health communication campaigns: Theory and practice (pp. 21-40). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
