In this study, we investigate public outreach participation among Chinese scientists through a multiple mediation model. Factors related to the Sagan effect—negative experiences and negative personal norms—are examined as potential predictors and/or mediators. Based on a national survey of 8,533 scientists, we validate the Sagan effect triggered by their negative experiences, which indirectly inhibit their outreach participation intentions through negative personal norms. Moreover, positive social norms and rewards play multilayered roles in mitigating the Sagan effect and improving such intentions. This study provides a more comprehensive examination of the underlying mechanisms behind scientists’ willingness to engage with the public.
AndrewsE.WeaverA.HanleyD.ShamathaJ.MeltonG. (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
2.
BambergS.HuneckeM.BlöbaumA. (2007). Social context, personal norms and the use of public transportation: Two field studies. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27(3), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2007.04.001
3.
BauerM. W.JensenP. (2011). The mobilization of scientists for public engagement. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510394457
4.
BesleyJ. C. (2015). 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
BesleyJ. C.NisbetM. (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
7.
BesleyJ. C.OhS. H.NisbetM. (2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315
8.
BolderdijkJ. W.LehmanP. K.GellerE. S. (2018). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour with rewards and penalties. In StegL.de GrootJ. I. M. (Eds.), Environmental psychology (pp. 273–282). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch27
9.
BowlesS. (2008). Policies designed for self-interested citizens may undermine “the moral sentiments”: Evidence from economic experiments. Science, 320(5883), 1605–1609. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1152110
10.
CoppleJ.BennettN.DudoA.MoonW.-K.NewmanT. P.BesleyJ.LeaveyN.LindenfeldL.VolpeC. (2020). Contribution of training to scientists’ public engagement intentions: A test of indirect relationships using parallel multiple mediation. Science Communication, 42(4), 508–537. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020943594
11.
Crettaz von RotenF. (2011). Gender differences in scientists’ public outreach and engagement activities. Science Communication, 33(1), 52–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010378658
12.
DeciE. L.KoestnerR.RyanR. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
13.
DoranR.LarsenS. (2016). The relative importance of social and personal norms in explaining intentions to choose eco-friendly travel options. International Journal of Tourism Research, 18(2), 159–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/jtr.2042
14.
DudoA. (2013). 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
15.
DudoA.BesleyJ.KahlorL. A.KohH.CoppleJ.YuanS. (2018). Microbiologists’ public engagement views and behaviors. Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education, 19(1), 19.1.20. https://doi.org/10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1402
16.
DunwoodyS. (1986). The scientist as source. In DunwoodyS.FriedmanS. M.RogersC. L. (Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 3–16). Free Press.
17.
DunwoodyS.BrossardD.DudoA. (2009). Socialization or rewards? Predicting U.S. Scientist-Media interactions. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 86(2), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900908600203
18.
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
19.
EntradasM.BauerM. W. (2019). Bustling public communication by astronomers around the world driven by personal and contextual factors. Nature Astronomy, 3(2), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-018-0633-7
20.
GaoH.ZhangY.ZhaiL. (2012). A survey on the current situation of scientists of understanding science popularization in Beijing [北京地区科学家群体理解科普状况的典型调查]. Studies on Science Popularization, 7(3), 52–59.
21.
GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ. (1997). Incentives and impediments to scientists communicating through the media. Science Communication, 18(3), 265–282. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547097018003005
22.
HoS. S.LooiJ.GohT. J. (2020). Scientists as public communicators: Individual- and institutional-level motivations and barriers for public communication in Singapore. Asian Journal of Communication, 30(2), 155–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/01292986.2020.1748072
23.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
24.
JacobsonN.ButterillD.GoeringP. (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
25.
JanssonJ.DorrepaalE. (2015). Personal norms for dealing with climate change: Results from a survey using moral foundations theory. Sustainable Development, 23(6), 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.1598
26.
JensenP. (2011). A statistical picture of popularization activities and their evolutions in France. Public Understanding of Science, 20(1), 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662510383632
27.
JensenP.RouquierJ.-B.KreimerP.CroissantY. (2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130
28.
JiaH.LiuL. (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
29.
JiaH.WangD.MiaoW.ZhuH. (2017). Encountered but not engaged: Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists. Science Communication, 39(5), 646–672. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547017735114
30.
JinJ.WuO.ChuY.LinC.ZhangX. (2018). Exploring the discrepancy of scientists’ attitudes and behaviors on science communication: The role of institutional policy and community value orientation [科学家参与科学传播的认知和行为之间的反差：价值认同与机构奖惩的角度]. Journalism & Communication, 25(2), 20–33.
31.
JohnsonD. R.EcklundE. H.LincolnA. E. (2014). Narratives of science outreach in elite contexts of academic science. Science Communication, 36(1), 81–105. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547013499142
32.
KennedyD. (2010). Science and the Media. In KennedyD.OverholserG. (Eds.), Science and the media (pp. 1–10). American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
33.
KimS. H.SeockY.-K. (2019). The roles of values and social norm on personal norms and pro-environmentally friendly apparel product purchasing behavior: The mediating role of personal norms. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 51, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.05.023
KreimerP.LevinL.JensenP. (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
36.
KundaZ.SchwartzS. H. (1983). Undermining intrinsic moral motivation: External reward and self-presentation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 763–771. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.763
LiangX.SuL. Y. F.YeoS. K.ScheufeleD. A.BrossardD.XenosM.. . .CorleyE. A. (2014). Building buzz: (Scientists) communicating science in new media environments. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 91(4), 772–791. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077699014550092
40.
ManzoorF.WeiL.AsifM. (2021). Intrinsic rewards and employee’s performance with the mediating mechanism of employee’s motivation. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 563070. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.563070
41.
Martín-SempereM. J.Garzón-GarcíaB.Rey-RochaJ. (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
42.
McClainC.NeeleyL. (2014). A critical evaluation of science outreach via social media: Its role and impact on scientists. F1000Research, 3, Article 300. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.5918.2
43.
MottazC. J. (1985). The relative importance of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards as determinants of work satisfaction. The Sociological Quarterly, 26(3), 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1985.tb00233.x
44.
PoliakoffE.WebbT. 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
45.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879
46.
QiL.XuanL.FujunR. (2013). Studies on scientists engagement in public outreach in China: Motivations, impediments and countermeasures. Proceedings of PICMET’13: Technology Management in the It-Driven Services, 13(PICMET), 143–147.
47.
RenF.LiuX.WangX.YinL. (2014). Comparison study on China-UK scientists’ engagement in public outreach activities. Proceedings of Picmet’14 Conference: Portland International Center for Management of Engineering and Technology; Infrastructure and Service Integration, 14, 429–434.
48.
RivisA.SheeranP. (2003). Descriptive norms as an additional predictor in the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Current Psychology, 22(3), 218–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-003-1018-2
SchwartzS. H. (1977). Normative influences on altruism. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5
51.
SchwartzS. H.FleishmanJ. A. (1982). Effects of negative personal norms on helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 8(1), 81–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728281013
52.
SkinnerB. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Alfred A. Knopf.
53.
ThøgersenJ. (2003). Monetary incentives and recycling: Behavioural and psychological reactions to a performance-dependent garbage fee. Journal of Consumer Policy, 2(26), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023633320485
54.
ThøgersenJ. (2006). Norms for environmentally responsible behaviour: An extended taxonomy. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26(4), 247–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2006.09.004
55.
TiffanyL. A.HauteaS.BesleyJ. C.NewmanT. P.DudoA. (2022). Effect of context on scientists’ normative beliefs. Science Communication, 44(1), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048186
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7
58.
VygotskyL. S. (1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In WertschJ. V. (Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Sharpe.
59.
WangY.ChenT.HeX. (2019). An empirical study on the influencing factors and strategies of science popularization by scientific and technical worker in China [我国科技工作者开展科普工作影响因素与对策实证研究]. Studies on Science Popularization, 4, 5–13.
XuS.HeG.ZhaoY. (2012). Level and obstacle of S&T professionals’ participation in popularization of science in China—Based on the data of the general survey of Chinese S&T professionals [我国科技工作者参与科普活动的现状与障碍——基于第二次全国科技工作者状况调查数据]. Forum on Science and Technology in China, 1, 126–130.
62.
ZhangJ. Y. (2015). The “credibility paradox” in China’s science communication: Views from scientific practitioners. Public Understanding of Science, 24(8), 913–927. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515598249
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.
