This study uses survey data to explore ecologists’ willingness to prioritize the behavioral goal of considering local community members’ perspectives in the context of research at Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites. It finds that believing in the benefits of such listening is a relatively strong statistical predictor of expressing a willingness to prioritize listening. Neither normative beliefs nor agency beliefs were strong correlates of prioritizing listening. Women and younger scientists were more willing to prioritize listening as a goal. The study builds on the “strategic science communication as planned behavior” approach to try to better understand scientists’ communication choices.
ArmitageC. J.ConnerM. (2001). Efficacy of the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 471–499. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466601164939
2.
BanduraA. (1978). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 1(4), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4
3.
BanduraA. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.
4.
BauerM. W.AllumN.MillerS. (2007). What can we learn from 25 years of PUS survey research? Liberating and expanding the agenda. Public Understanding of Science, 16(1), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506071287
5.
BennettN.DudoA.YuanS.BesleyJ. C. (2019). Chapter 1: Scientists, trainers, and the strategic communication of science. In NewmanT. P. (Ed.), Theory and best practices in science communication training (pp. 9–31). Routledge.
6.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2022a). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis, 42, 2584–2592. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029
7.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2022b). Strategic science communication: A guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. Johns Hopkins University Press.
8.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA.YuanS. (2018). Scientists’ views about communication objectives. Public Understanding of Science, 27(6), 708–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478
9.
BesleyJ. C.GarlickS.Lambert FallonK.TiffanyL. A. (2021). The role of communication professionals in fostering a culture of public engagement. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 11(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2021.1943763
10.
BesleyJ. C.NewmanT.DudoA.TiffanyL. A. (2020). Exploring scholars’ public engagement goals in Canada and the United States. Public Understanding of Science, 29(8), 855–867. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520950671
11.
BesleyJ. C.NewmanT. P.DudoA.TiffanyL. A. (2021). American scientists’ willingness to use different communication tactics. Science Communication, 43(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211011159
12.
BesleyJ. C.SchweizerP.-J. (2022). Risk researchers’ views about the goal of trying to ensure policymakers consider scientific evidence. Risk Analysis, 44(4), 786–798. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13813
13.
CanfieldK. N.MenezesS.MatsudaS. B.MooreA.Austin MosleyA. N.DewsburyB. M.Feliú-MójerM. I.McDuffieK. W. B.MooreK.ReichC. A.SmithH. M.TaylorC. (2020). Science communication demands a critical approach that centers inclusion, equity, and intersectionality. Frontiers in Communication, 5, Article 2. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00002
14.
CarpenterC. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521906
15.
ChaikenS.MaheswaranD. (1994). Heuristic processing can bias systematic processing: Effects of source credibility, argument ambiguity, and task importance on attitude judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(3), 460.
16.
CraigS. C.NiemiR. G.SilverG. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items [journal article]. Political Behavior, 12(3), 289–314. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00992337
17.
DijkstraA. M.RoefsM. M.DrossaertC. H. C. (2015). The science-media interaction in biomedical research in the Netherlands. Opinions of scientists and journalists on the science-media relationship [Article]. Journal of Science Communication, 14(2), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.14020203
18.
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
DudoA.BesleyJ. C.YuanS. (2021). Science communication training in North America: Preparing whom to do what with what effect?Science Communication, 43(1), 33–63. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020960138
21.
ElsterJ. (1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.
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. 215–235). Jossey-Bass.
24.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
25.
GovenJ. (2003). Deploying the consensus conference in New Zealand: Democracy and de-problematization. Public Understanding of Science, 12(4), 423–440. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625031240
26.
GrunigJ. E. (1992). What is excellence in management? In GrunigJ. E. (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 219–250). Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
HallahanK.HoltzhausenD.van RulerB.VerčičD.SrirameshK. (2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180701285244
LawtonR.ConnerM.ParkerD. (2007). Beyond cognition: Predicting health risk behaviors from instrumental and affective beliefs. Health Psychology, 26(3), 259–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.26.3.259
LTER Network. (2023). National science foundation LTER network. https://lternet.edu/
35.
McCroskeyJ. C.TevenJ. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464
36.
McEachanR. R. C.ConnerM.TaylorN. J.LawtonR. J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviours with the theory of planned behaviour: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5(2), 97–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2010.521684
37.
MontanoD. E.KasprzykD. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In GlanzK. (Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed., pp. 67–96). Wiley-Blackwell.
National Research Council. (2009). Learning science in informal environments: People, places, and pursuits. The National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=12190
40.
NewmanT. P. (2020). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.
41.
O’KeefeD. J. (2016). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). SAGE.
42.
OliverM. B.RaneyA. A. (2011). Entertainment as pleasurable and meaningful: Identifying hedonic and eudaimonic motivations for entertainment consumption. Journal of Communication, 61(5), 984–1004. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x
43.
PetermanK.GarlickS.BesleyJ.Allen FallonS.LambertK.NadkarniN. M.RosinM. S.WeberC.WeissM.WongJ. (2021). Boundary spanners and thinking partners: Adapting and expanding the research-practice partnership literature for public engagement with science (PES). Journal of Science Communication, 20(7), N01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20070801
44.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Springer-Verlag.
45.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.
46.
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
47.
PriceV.NeijensP. (1997). Opinion quality in public opinion research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 9(4), 336–360. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/9.4.336
48.
RimalR. N.LapinskiM. K. (2015). A re-explication of social norms, ten years later [Article]. Communication Theory, 25(4), 393–409. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12080
49.
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 Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_8
50.
RodgersS.WangZ.SchultzJ. C. (2020). A scale to measure science communication training effectiveness. Science Communication, 42(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020903057
51.
RoseK. M.MarkowitzE. M.BrossardD. (2020). Scientists’ incentives and attitudes toward public communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3), 1274–1276. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1916740117
52.
RoweG.FrewerL. J. (2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.
53.
SchoormanF. D.MayerR. C.DavisJ. H. (2007). An integrative model of organizational trust: Past, present, and future. The Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 344–354. https://doi.org/10.2307/20159304
54.
SimisM. J.MaddenH.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K. (2016). The lure of rationality: Why does the deficit model persist in science communication?Public Understanding of Science, 25(4), 400–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662516629749
55.
StylinskiC.StorksdieckM.CanzoneriN.KleinE.JohnsonA. (2018). Impacts of a comprehensive public engagement training and support program on scientists’ outreach attitudes and practices. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(4), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188
56.
ThalerR. H.SunsteinC. R. (2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.
57.
TiffanyL. A.HauteaS.BesleyJ. C.NewmanT. P.DudoA. (2022). Effect of context on scientists’ normative beliefs. Science Communication, 44(1), 10755470211048186. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211048186
58.
TrenchB. (2008). Towards an analytical framework of science communication Models. In ChengD.ClaessensM.GascoigneT.MetcalfeJ.SchieleB.ShiS. (Eds.), Communicating science in social contexts: New models, new practices (pp. 119–135). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7_7
59.
van der LindenS. (2015). The social-psychological determinants of climate change risk perceptions: Towards a comprehensive model. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 41, 112–124. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012
60.
Van DykeM. S.LeeN. M. (2020). Science public relations: The parallel, interwoven, and contrasting trajectories of public relations and science communication theory and practice. Public Relations Review, 46(4), Article 101953. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2020.101953
61.
WeingartP.JoubertM. (2019). The conflation of motives of science communication: Causes, consequences, remedies. Journal of Science Communication, 18(3), Article Y01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.18030401
62.
YuanS.OshitaT.AbiGhannamN.DudoA.BesleyJ. C.KohH. 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, 7(4), 341–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1350789
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.
