Past research on the relationship between scientists’ normative beliefs about public engagement in the context of willingness to engage could prove misleading if respondents do not consider the impacts of engagement activities when responding to survey questions. This study asks scientists to report normative beliefs in the context of engagement impacts and explores correlations between these responses and engagement willingness. Results suggest mentioning positive societal impact positively affects normative beliefs, while mentioning lost research time negatively affects normative beliefs. However, changing the measurement context does not affect the non-relationship between normative beliefs and engagement willingness.
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scu042
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. C. (2013). Predicting scientist’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22, 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
4.
BesleyJ. C.O’HaraK.DudoA. (2019). Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists’ willingness to choose specific tactics. PLOS ONE, 14(10), Article e0224039. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0224039
5.
ChaikenS. (1980). Heuristic versus systematic information processing and the use of source versus message cues in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(5), 752. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.39.5.752
6.
DruckmanJ. N.LupiaA. (2016). Preference change in competitive political environments. Annual Review of Political Science, 19(1), 13–31.
7.
DudoA.BesleyJ. C. (2016). Scientists’ prioritization of communication objectives for public engagement. PLOS ONE, 11(2), Article e0148867.
8.
DudoA.KahlorL.AbiGhannamN.LazardA.LiangM.-C. (2014). An analysis of nanoscientists as public communicators. Nature Nanotechnology, 9, 841–844. https://doi.org/10.1038/nnano.2014.194
9.
EcklundE. H.JamesS. A.LincolnA. E. (2012). How academic biologists and physicists view science outreach. PLOS ONE, 7(5), Article e36240. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0036240
10.
FahyD. (2017). Historical moments in public understanding of science: 1977, The Visible Scientists identifies a new scientist for the mass media age. Public Understanding of Science, 26(8), 1019–1024. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517732909
11.
KahnemanD. (2003). A perspective on judgment and choice: Mapping bounded rationality. American Psychologist, 58(9), 697–720.
12.
KincaidD. L. (2004). From innovation to social norm: Bounded normative influence. Journal of Health Communication, 9(Suppl. 1), 37–57.
13.
LapinskiM. K.RimalR. N. (2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147.
14.
Martinez-CondeS. (2016). Has contemporary academia outgrown the Carl Sagan effect?Journal of Neuroscience, 36(7), 2077–2082.
15.
McNuttM. (2016, October 27). Beyond “one size fits all”—Communications in science: The why, how and when. [Paper presentation] 2016 Annenberg Lecture, Annenberg Public Policy Center, Philadelphia, PA, United States.
16.
MyersT. A.NisbetM. C.MaibachE. W.LeiserowitzA. A. (2012). A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Climatic Change, 113(3–4), 1105–1112.
17.
NisbetM. (2009). Framing science: A new paradigm in public engagement. In KahlorL.A.StoutP. A. (Eds.), Communicating science: New agendas in communication (pp. 40–67). Routledge.
18.
ParkH. S.SmithS. W. (2007). Distinctiveness and influence of subjective norms, personal descriptive and injunctive norms, and society descriptive and injunctive norms on behavioral intent: A case of two behaviors critical to organ donation. Human Communication Research, 33(2), 194–218. https://doi.org/j.1468-2958.2007.00296.x
19.
PetersH. P. (2013). Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14102–14109. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212745110
20.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Springer-Verlang.
21.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. L. (2007). What factors predict scientists’ intentions to participate in public engagement of science activities?Science Communication, 29, 242–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547007308009
22.
RimalR. N.LapinskiM. K.CookR. J.RealK. (2005). Moving toward a theory of normative influences: How perceived benefits and similarity moderate the impact of descriptive norms on behaviors. Journal of Health Communication, 10(5), 433–450.
23.
RimalR. N.RealK. (2003). Understanding the influence of perceived norms on behaviors. Communication Theory, 13(2), 184–203.
24.
RödderS. (2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In RödderS.FranzenM.WeingartP. (Eds.), The sciences’ media connection –public communication and its repercussions (pp. 155–177). Springer.
25.
SchäferM. S. (2009). From public understanding to public engagement: An empirical assessment of changes in science coverage. Science Communication, 30(4), 475–505.
