Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article investigates the impact science communication training has on engagement intentions through a parallel multiple mediation model. Theory of planned behavior variables for internal efficacy, response efficacy, norms, and attitudes are examined as potential mediators. Based on a survey of randomly selected scientists from universities in the Association of American Universities, results indicate indirect effects for internal efficacy and attitudes toward the audience and consistent direct effects found in earlier research. This research provides a more comprehensive examination of how communication training contributes to scientists’ public engagement activity.

Keywords

scientists science communication training public engagement theory of planned behavior mediation

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Andrews

Weaver

Hanley

Shamatha

Melton

(2005). Scientists and public outreach: Participation, motivations, and impediments. Journal of Geoscience Education, 53(3), 281-293. https://doi.org/10.5408/1089-9995-53.3.281

Association of American Universities (2010, April 20) Membership policy. Retrieved December 17, 2019, from https://www.aau.edu/who-we-are/membership-policy

Bailey

(2010). Creating a climate for change: Communicating climate change and facilitating social change: By Susanne C Moser and Lisa Dilling. Area, 42(1), 133-134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4762.2009.00933_2.x

Baram-Tsabari

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2017). Science communication training: What are we trying to teach? International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 7(3), 285-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1303756

Bauer

M. W.

Jensen

(2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457

Bennett

Dudo

Yuan

Besley

(2019). Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In Newman

T. P.

(Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 9-31). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351069366-2

Bentley

Kyvik

(2011). Academic staff and public communication: A survey of popular science publishing across 13 countries. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 48-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510384461

Besley

J. C.

(2014). What do scientists think about the public and does it matter to their online engagement? Science and Public Policy, 42(2), 201-214. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042

10.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Storksdieck

(2015). Scientists’ views about communication training. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 52(2), 199-220. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.21186

11.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Yuan

(2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708-730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478

12.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

A. D.

Yuan

Ghannam

N. A.

(2016). Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers about communication objectives and goals. Science Communication, 38(3), 356-381. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547016645640

13.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Yuan

Lawrence

(2018). Understanding scientists’ willingness to engage. Science Communication, 40(5), 559-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018786561

14.

Besley

J. C.

Nisbet

(2013). How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Understanding of Science, 22(6), 644-659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662511418743

15.

Besley

J. C.

S.-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(5-6), 158-171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0270467614528901

16.

Besley

J. C.

S. H.

Nisbet

(2012). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971-987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315

17.

Besley

J. C.

Tanner

A. H.

(2011). What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Science Communication, 33(2), 239-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010386972

18.

Biegelbauer

Hansen

(2011). Democratic theory and citizen participation: Democracy models in the evaluation of public participation in science and technology. Science and Public Policy, 38(8), 589-597. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234211X13092649606404

19.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). Science, new media, and the public. Science, 339(6115), 40-41. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1232329

20.

Burchell

Sheppard

Chambers

(2017). A’work in progress’?: UK researchers and participation in public engagement. Research for All, 1(1), 198-224. https://doi.org/10.18546/RFA.01.1.16

21.

Cameron

Collie

M. C. L.

Baldwin

C. D.

Bartholomew

L. K.

Palmer

J. L.

Greer

Chang

(2013). The development of scientific communication skills: A qualitative study of the perceptions of trainees and their mentors. Academic Medicine, 88(10), 1499-1506. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182a34f36

22.

Canete Benitez

S. N

. (2014). University researchers and public communication: What influences their intention to engage with non-experts? [Doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University]. NC State Repository. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstream/handle/1840.16/9351/etd.pdf

23.

Carrada

(2006). A scientist’s survival kit: Communicating science. Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

24.

Chapman

Haynes

Derrick

Sturk

Hall

W. D.

St. George

(2014). Reaching “an audience that you would never dream of speaking to”: Influential public health researchers’ views on the role of news media in influencing policy and public understanding. Journal of Health Communication, 19(2), 260-273. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2013.811327

25.

Cicerone

R. J.

(2006). Celebrating and rethinking science communication. In Focus, 6(3), 3. http://www.infocusmagazine.org/6.3/president.html

26.

Corrado

Pooni

Hartfree

(2000). The role of scientists in public debate: Full report. Market and Opinion Research International. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/migrations/en-uk/files/Assets/Docs/Archive/Polls/wellcome-main.pdf

27.

Crettaz von Roten

. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658

28.

Crone

W. C.

Dunwoody

S. L.

Rediske

R. K.

Ackerman

S. A.

Petersen

G. M. Z.

Yaros

R. A.

(2011). Informal science education: A practicum for graduate students. Innovative Higher Education, 36(5), 291-304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10755-011-9176-x

29.

Dixon

G. N.

Clarke

C. E.

(2013). Heightening uncertainty around certain science: Media coverage, false balance, and the autism-vaccine controversy. Science Communication, 35(3), 358-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012458290

30.

Dudo

(2012). Toward a model of scientists’ public communication activity: The case of biomedical researchers. Science Communication, 35(4), 476-501. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012460845

31.

Dudo

(2015). Scientists, the media, and the public communication of science. Sociology Compass, 9(9), 761-775. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12298

32.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

(2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0148867. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867

33.

Dudo

Besley

Kahlor

L. A.

Koh

Copple

Yuan

(2018). Microbiologists’ public engagement views and behaviors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402

34.

Dudo

Kahlor

L. A.

Abighannam

Lazard

Liang

M. C.

(2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9(10), 841-844. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194

35.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting US scientist-media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299-314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203

36.

Edmonston

J. E.

Dawsom

Schibeci

(2010). Undergraduate biotechnology students’ views of science communication. International Journal of Science Education, 32(18), 2451-2474. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500690903514598

37.

European Commission. (2002). Science and society action plan. https://ec.europa.eu/research/swafs/pdf/pub_gender_equality/ss_ap_en.pdf

38.

Eveland

W. P.

Jr. (1997). Interactions and nonlinearity in mass communication: Connecting theory and methodology. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 74(2), 400-416. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769909707400211

39.

Fahy

Nisbet

M. C.

(2011). The science journalist online: Shifting roles and emerging practices. Journalism, 12(7), 778-793. https://doi.org/10.1177/1464884911412697

40.

Finch

O’Hanlon

Dudley

S. P.

(2017). Tweeting birds: Online mentions predict future citations in ornithology. Royal Society Open Science, 4(11), Article 171371. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.171371

41.

Gardner

G. E.

Jones

M. G.

Albe

Blonder

Laherto

Macher

Paechter

(2017). Factors influencing postsecondary STEM students’ views of the public communication of an emergent technology: A cross-national study from five universities. Research in Science Education, 47(5), 1011-1029. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-016-9537-7

42.

Gascoigne

(2006). Scientists engaging with the public. In Cheng

Metcalfe

Schiele

(Eds.), At the human scale: International practices in science communication. Science Press.

43.

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

J. E.

(1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media a preliminary report. Science Communication, 18(3), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547097018003005

44.

Gorghiu

Santi

E. A.

(2016). Applications of experiential learning in science education non-formal contexts. European Proceeding of Social and Behavioral Sciences EpSBS, XVI, 320-326. https://doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2016.11.33

45.

Gregory

Miller

(1998). Science in public: Communication, culture, and credibility. Plenum Press.

46.

Groffman

P. M.

Stylinski

Nisbet

M. C.

Duarte

C. M.

Jordan

Burgin

Previtali

M. A.

Coloso

(2010). Restarting the conversation: Challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 284-291. https://doi.org/10.1890/090160

47.

Hamlyn

Shanahan

Lewis

O’Donoghue

Hanson

Burchell

(2015). Factors affecting public engagement by researchers. TNS-BMRB. https://wellcome.ac.uk/sites/default/files/wtp060033_0.pdf

48.

Hayes

A. F.

(2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Press.

49.

S. S.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2008). Effects of value predispositions, mass media use, and knowledge on public attitudes toward embryonic stem cell research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 20(2), 171-192. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edn017

50.

Holt

R. D.

(2015). Why science? Why AAAS? Science, 347(6224), 807. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa9126

51.

Horst

(2013). A field of expertise, the organization, or science itself? Scientists’ perception of representing research in public communication. Science Communication, 35(6), 758-779. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013487513

52.

Howell

E. L.

Nepper

Brossard

Xenos

M. A.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2019). Engagement present and future: Graduate student and faculty perceptions of social media and the role of the public in science engagement. PLOS ONE, 14(5), Article e0216274. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216274

53.

Iseler

(2017, October 3). University to focus on promoting faculty public engagement. University of Michigan: The University Record. https://record.umich.edu/articles/university-focus-promoting-faculty-public-engagement/

54.

Jacobson

Butterill

Goering

(2004). Organizational factors that influence university-based researchers’ engagement in knowledge transfer activities. Science Communication, 25(3), 246-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547003262038

55.

Jia

Liu

(2014). Unbalanced progress: The hard road from science popularisation to public engagement with science in China. Public Understanding of Science, 23(1), 32-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662513476404

56.

King

A. J.

(2016). Visual exemplification and skin cancer: The utility of exemplars in promoting skin self-exams and atypical nevi identification. Journal of Health Communication, 21(7), 826-836. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2016.1177143

57.

Kreimer

Levin

Jensen

(2011). Popularization by Argentine researchers: The activities and motivations of CONICET scientists. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383924

58.

Kyvik

(2005). Popular science publishing and contributions to public discourse among university faculty. Science Communication, 26(3), 288-311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547004273022

59.

Lamb

C. T.

Gilbert

S. L.

Ford

A. T.

(2018). Tweet success? Scientific communication correlates with increased citations in ecology and conservation. PeerJ, 2018(4), Article e4564. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4564

60.

Lee

C. J.

Scheufele

D. A.

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2005). Public attitudes toward emerging technologies: Examining the interactive effects of cognitions and affect on public attitudes toward nanotechnology. Science Communication, 27(2), 240-267. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547005281474

61.

Leshner

A. I.

(2007). Outreach training needed. Science, 315(5809), 161. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1138712

62.

Martin-Sempere

M. J.

Garzn-Garca

Rey-Rocha

(2008). Scientists’ motivation to communicate science and technology to the public: Surveying participants at the Madrid Science Fair. Public Understanding of Science, 17(3), 349-367. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506067660

63.

McCann

B. M.

Cramer

C. B.

Taylor

L. G.

(2015). Assessing the impact of education and outreach activities on research scientists. Journal of Higher Education Outreach and Engagement, 19(1), 65-78.

64.

Mellors-Bourne

Metcalfe

(2011). Careers in Research Online Survey (CROS) 2011: Analysis of UK aggregate results. Careers Research and Advisory Centre.

65.

Mervis

(2017). Federal share of basic research hits new low. Science, 355(6329), 1005. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.355.6329.1005

66.

Meyer

J. L.

Frumhoff

P. C.

Hamburg

S. P.

De La Rosa

(2010). Above the din but in the fray: Environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 299-305. https://doi.org/10.1890/090143

67.

Myers

T. A.

(2011). Goodbye, listwise deletion: Presenting hot deck imputation as an easy and effective tool for handling missing data. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(4), 297-310. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2011.624490

68.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Science literacy: Concepts, contexts, and consequences. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23595

69.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Graduate STEM education for the 21st century ( Leshner

A. I.

Scherer

Eds.). National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038

70.

National Science Board. (2014). Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. In Science and engineering indicators 2014. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/chapter-7.pdf

71.

Ndlovu

Joubert

Boshoff

(2016). Public science communication in Africa: Views and practices of academics at the National University of Science and Technology in Zimbabwe. Journal of Science Communication, 15(6), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.15060205

72.

Neeley

Goldman

Smith

Baron

Sunu

(2014). Gradscicomm report and recommendations: Mapping the pathways to integrate science communication training into STEM graduate education. COMPASS. https://www.informalscience.org/sites/default/files/GradSciComm_Roadmap_Final.compressed.pdf

73.

Newman

T. P.

(2019). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351069366

74.

Nisbet

M. C.

(2010). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In Kahlor

L. A.

Stout

(Eds.), Communicating science (pp. 54-81). Routledge.

75.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2009). What’s next for science communication? Promising directions and lingering distractions. American Journal of Botany, 96(10), 1767-1778. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041

76.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shanahan

Moy

Brossard

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584-608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196

77.

Bellur

Sundar

S. S.

(2018). Clicking, assessing, immersing, and sharing: An empirical model of user engagement with interactive media. Communication Research, 45(5), 737-763. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650215600493

78.

Sundar

S. S.

(2015). How does interactivity persuade? An experimental test of interactivity on cognitive absorption, elaboration, and attitudes. Journal of Communication, 65(2), 213-236. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12147

79.

Ouellette

J. A.

Wood

(1998). Habit and intention in everyday life: The multiple processes by which past behavior predicts future behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 54-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.124.1.54

80.

Pearson

Pringle

S. M.

Thomas

J. N.

(1997). Scientists and the public understanding of science. Public Understanding of Science, 6(3), 279-289. https://doi.org/10.1088/0963-6625/6/3/006

81.

Peterman

Robertson Evia

Cloyd

Besley

J. C.

(2017). Assessing public engagement outcomes by the use of an outcome expectations scale for scientists. Science Communication, 39(6), 782-797. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017738018

82.

Pew Research Center. (2009, July 9). Public praises science; scientists fault public, media: Scientific acheivements less prominent than a decade ago. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/

83.

Pew Research Center. (2015). How scientists engage the public. http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/

84.

Pituch

K. A.

Stevens

J. P.

(2015). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences: Analyses with SAS and IBM’s SPSS. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315814919

85.

Poliakoff

Webb

T. L.

(2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities? Science Communication, 29(2), 242-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009

86.

Rimal

R. N.

Real

(2005). How behaviors are influenced by perceived norms a test of the theory of normative social behavior. Communication Research, 32(3), 389-414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650205275385

87.

Rodgers

Wang

Maras

M. A.

Burgoyne

Balakrishnan

Stemmle

Schultz

J. C.

(2018). Decoding science: Development and evaluation of a science communication training program using a triangulated framework. Science Communication, 40(1), 3-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017747285

88.

Rose

K. M.

Markowitz

E. M.

Brossard

(2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(3), 1274-1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117

89.

Rowe

Frewer

L. J.

(2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 30(2), 251-290. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243904271724

90.

Rowland

Hardy

Colthorpe

Pedwell

Kuchel

(2018). CLIPS (Communication Learning in Practice for Scientists): A new online resource leverages assessment to help students and academics improve science communication. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 1-4. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1466

91.

Royal Society. (2006). Science Communication: Excellence in science. Survey of factors affecting science communication by scientists and engineers. Research Councils UK & Wellcome Trust. https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2006/1111111395.pdf

92.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040-14047. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110

93.

Schultz

P. W.

Nolan

J. M.

Cialdini

R. B.

Goldstein

N. J.

Griskevicius

(2007). The constructive, destructive, and reconstructive power of social norms: Reprise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 18(5), 429-434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693325

94.

Shoemaker

P. J.

Tankard

J. W.

Jr. Lasorsa

D. L.

(2003). How to build social science theories. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412990110

95.

Silva

Bultitude

(2009). Best practice in communications training for public engagement with science, technology, engineering and mathematics. Journal of Science Communication, 8(2), A03. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.08020203

96.

Stevens

Mills

Kuchel

(2019). Teaching communication in general science degrees: Highly valued but missing the mark. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(8), 1163-1176. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2019.1578861

97.

Stylinski

Storksdieck

Canzoneri

Klein

Johnson

(2018). Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 8(4), 340-354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188

98.

L. Y. F.

Akin

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2015). Science news consumption patterns and their implications for public understanding of science. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 92(3), 597-616. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699015586415

99.

Torres-Albero

Fernández-Esquinas

Rey-Rocha

Martín-Sempere

M. J.

(2011). Dissemination practices in the spanish research system: Scientists trapped in a golden cage. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 12-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510382361

100.

Trench

Miller

(2012). Policies and practices in supporting scientists’ public communication through training. Science and Public Policy, 39(6), 722-731. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scs090

101.

Tricot

Sweller

(2014). Domain-specific knowledge and why teaching generic skills does not work. Educational Psychology Review, 26(2), 265-283. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9243-1

102.

Tsfati

Cohen

Gunther

A. C.

(2011). The influence of presumed media influence on news about science and scientists. Science Communication, 33(2), 143-166. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010380385

103.

Vosoughi

Roy

Aral

(2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146-1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559

104.

Yang

S. U.

Kang

Cha

(2015). A study on dialogic communication, trust, and distrust: Testing a scale for measuring organization–public dialogic communication (OPDC). Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(2), 175-192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1062726X.2015.1007998

105.

Yang

S. U.

Kang

Johnson

(2010). Effects of narratives, openness to dialogic communication, and credibility on engagement in crisis communication through organizational blogs. Communication Research, 37(4), 473-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210362682

106.

Yeo

S. K.

(2015). Public engagement with and communication of science in a web-2.0 media environment. AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science and Technology. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/content_files/public%20engagement%20social%20media_Yeo_single.pdf

107.

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

(2019). A comparison between scientists’ and communication scholars’ views about scientists’ public engagement activities. Public Understanding of Science, 28(1), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662518797002

108.

Yuan

Oshita

AbiGhannam

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

Koh

H. E.

(2017). Two-way communication between scientists and the public: A view from science communication trainers in North America. International Journal of Science Education, Part B: Communication and Public Engagement, 7(4), 341-355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789

109.

Yzer

(2012). The integrative model of behavioral prediction as a tool for designing health messages. In Cho

(Ed.), Health communication message design: Theory and practice (pp. 21-40). Sage. http://www.sagepub.com/upm-data/43568_2.pdf

Contribution of Training to Scientists’ Public Engagement Intentions: A Test of Indirect Relationships Using Parallel Multiple Mediation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References