The Sagan Effect and Scientists’ Public Outreach Participation in China: Multilayered Roles of Social Norms and Rewards

Abstract

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.

Keywords

public outreach Sagan effect negative personal norms social norms intrinsic and extrinsic rewards

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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

Bamberg

Hunecke

Blöbaum

(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

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

Besley

J. 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

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

Yuan

Lawrence

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

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

Besley

J. C.

S. H.

Nisbet

(2013). Predicting scientists’ participation in public life. Public Understanding of Science, 22(8), 971–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512459315

Bolderdijk

J. W.

Lehman

P. K.

Geller

E. S.

(2018). Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour with rewards and penalties. In Steg

de Groot

J. I. M.

(Eds.), Environmental psychology (pp. 273–282). John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119241072.ch27

Bowles

(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.

Copple

Bennett

Dudo

Moon

W.-K.

Newman

T. P.

Besley

Leavey

Lindenfeld

Volpe

(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 Roten

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

12.

Deci

E. L.

Koestner

Ryan

R. 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.

Doran

Larsen

(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.

Dudo

(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.

Dudo

Besley

Kahlor

L. A.

Koh

Copple

Yuan

(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.

Dunwoody

(1986). The scientist as source. In Dunwoody

Friedman

S. M.

Rogers

C. L.

(Eds.), Scientists and journalists: Reporting science as news (pp. 3–16). Free Press.

17.

Dunwoody

Brossard

Dudo

(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.

Ecklund

E. H.

James

S. A.

Lincoln

A. 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.

Entradas

Bauer

M. 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.

Gao

Zhang

Zhai

(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.

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

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

22.

S. S.

Looi

Goh

T. 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.

Bentler

P. 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.

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

25.

Jansson

Dorrepaal

(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.

Jensen

(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.

Jensen

Rouquier

J.-B.

Kreimer

Croissant

(2008). Scientists who engage with society perform better academically. Science and Public Policy, 35(7), 527–541. https://doi.org/10.3152/030234208X329130

28.

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

29.

Jia

Wang

Miao

Zhu

(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.

Jin

Chu

Lin

Zhang

(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.

Johnson

D. R.

Ecklund

E. H.

Lincoln

A. 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.

Kennedy

(2010). Science and the Media. In Kennedy

Overholser

(Eds.), Science and the media (pp. 1–10). American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

33.

Kim

S. H.

Seock

Y.-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

34.

Koetse

(2022, May). “Experts are advised not to advise”: Why Weibo users are fed up with “expert advice.” China Health & Science. https://www.whatsonweibo.com/experts-are-advised-not-to-advise-why-weibo-users-are-fed-up-with-expert-advice/

35.

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

36.

Kunda

Schwartz

S. 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

37.

Lapinski

M. K.

Rimal

R. N.

(2005). An explication of social norms. Communication Theory, 15(2), 127–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2005.tb00329.x

38.

Leshner

A. I.

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

39.

Liang

L. Y. F.

Yeo

S. K.

Scheufele

D. A.

Brossard

Xenos

. . .Corley

E. 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.

Manzoor

Wei

Asif

(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-Sempere

M. J.

Garzón-García

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

42.

McClain

Neeley

(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.

Mottaz

C. 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.

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

45.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. 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.

Xuan

Fujun

(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.

Ren

Liu

Wang

Yin

(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.

Rivis

Sheeran

(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

49.

Royal Society. (2006). 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

50.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1977). Normative influences on altruism. In Berkowitz

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 221–279). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60358-5

51.

Schwartz

S. H.

Fleishman

J. 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.

Skinner

B. F.

(1974). About behaviorism. Alfred A. Knopf.

53.

Thøgersen

(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.

Thøgersen

(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.

Tiffany

L. A.

Hautea

Besley

J. C.

Newman

T. P.

Dudo

(2022). Effect of context on scientists’ normative beliefs. Science Communication, 44(1), 86–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048186

56.

Tollefson

(2018). China declared world’s largest producer of scientific articles. Nature, 553(7686), 390–391. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-00927-4

57.

Trench

(2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication models. In Cheng

Claessens

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

Schiele

Shi

(Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts (pp. 119–135). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7

58.

Vygotsky

L. S.

(1981). The genesis of higher mental functions. In Wertsch

J. V.

(Ed.), The concept of activity in Soviet psychology (pp. 144–188). Sharpe.

59.

Wang

Chen

(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.

60.

Qiu

(2013). Popular science publishing in contemporary China. Public Understanding of Science, 22(5), 521–529. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662512445013

61.

Zhao

(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.

Zhang

J. 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

63.

Zhang

(2020, August). Progress seen in scientific outreach work. China Daily. https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Science/China-passes-US-as-world-s-top-researcher-showing-its-R-D-might

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.

0.00 MB

1.70 MB