Ecologists Prioritize Listening to Community Perspectives When They See the Benefit: Norms and Self-Efficacy Beliefs Appear to Have Little Impact

Abstract

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.

Keywords

scientists strategic communication goals listening dialogue behavior change planned behavior

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armitage

C. J.

Conner

(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

Bandura

(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

Bandura

(1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. W.H. Freeman.

Bauer

M. W.

Allum

Miller

(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

Bennett

Dudo

Yuan

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Chapter 1: 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.

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

(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

Besley

J. C.

Dudo

(2022b). Strategic science communication: A guide to setting the right objectives for more effective public engagement. Johns Hopkins University Press.

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

Besley

J. C.

Garlick

Lambert Fallon

Tiffany

L. 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.

Besley

J. C.

Newman

Dudo

Tiffany

L. 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.

Besley

J. C.

Newman

T. P.

Dudo

Tiffany

L. A.

(2021). American scientists’ willingness to use different communication tactics. Science Communication, 43(4), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211011159

12.

Besley

J. C.

Schweizer

P.-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.

Canfield

K. N.

Menezes

Matsuda

S. B.

Moore

Austin Mosley

A. N.

Dewsbury

B. M.

Feliú-Mójer

M. I.

McDuffie

K. W. B.

Moore

Reich

C. A.

Smith

H. M.

Taylor

(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.

Carpenter

C. 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.

Chaiken

Maheswaran

(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.

Craig

S. C.

Niemi

R. G.

Silver

G. 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.

Dijkstra

A. M.

Roefs

M. M.

Drossaert

C. 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.

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

19.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

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

20.

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

Yuan

(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.

Elster

(1998). Deliberative democracy. Cambridge University Press.

22.

Fischhoff

(1995). Risk perception and communication unplugged: Twenty years of process. Risk Analysis, 2, 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x

23.

Fishbein

(2009). An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In DiClemente

R. J.

Crosby

R. A.

Kegler

M. C.

(Eds.), Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 215–235). Jossey-Bass.

24.

Fishbein

Ajzen

(2010). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.

25.

Goven

(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.

Grunig

J. E.

(1992). What is excellence in management? In Grunig

J. E.

(Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication management (pp. 219–250). Lawrence Erlbaum.

27.

Hallahan

Holtzhausen

van Ruler

Verčič

Sriramesh

(2007). Defining strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 1(1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1080/15531180701285244

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2006). A primer on multilevel modeling. Human Communication Research, 32(4), 385–410. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2958.2006.00281.x

29.

Hovland

C. I.

Janis

Kelley

H. H.

(1953). Communication and persuasion: Psychological studies of opinion change. Yale University Press.

30.

Kent

M. L.

Taylor

(2002). Toward a dialogic theory of public relations. Public Relations Review, 28(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0363-8111(02)00108-X

31.

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

32.

Lawton

Conner

Parker

(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

33.

Leshner

A. I.

(2003). Editorial: Public engagement with science. Science, 299, Article 977. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.299.5609.977

34.

LTER Network. (2023). National science foundation LTER network. https://lternet.edu/

35.

McCroskey

J. C.

Teven

J. J.

(1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637759909376464

36.

McEachan

R. R. C.

Conner

Taylor

N. J.

Lawton

R. 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.

Montano

D. E.

Kasprzyk

(2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In Glanz

(Ed.), Health behavior: Theory, research and practice (5th ed., pp. 67–96). Wiley-Blackwell.

38.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2016). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/23674/chapter/1

39.

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.

Newman

T. P.

(2020). Theory and best practices in science communication training. Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group.

41.

O’Keefe

D. J.

(2016). Persuasion: Theory and research (3rd ed.). SAGE.

42.

Oliver

M. B.

Raney

A. 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.

Peterman

Garlick

Besley

Allen Fallon

Lambert

Nadkarni

N. M.

Rosin

M. S.

Weber

Weiss

Wong

(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.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Springer-Verlag.

45.

Petty

R. E.

Cacioppo

J. T.

(1996). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Westview Press.

46.

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

47.

Price

Neijens

(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.

Rimal

R. N.

Lapinski

M. 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.

Rödder

(2012). The ambivalence of visible scientists. In Rödder

Franzen

Weingart

(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.

Rodgers

Wang

Schultz

J. C.

(2020). A scale to measure science communication training effectiveness. Science Communication, 42(1), 90–111. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020903057

51.

Rose

K. M.

Markowitz

E. M.

Brossard

(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.

Rowe

Frewer

L. J.

(2005). A typology of public engagement mechanisms. Science Technology & Human Values, 30(2), 251–290.

53.

Schoorman

F. D.

Mayer

R. C.

Davis

J. 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.

Simis

M. J.

Madden

Cacciatore

M. A.

Yeo

S. 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.

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, 8(4), 340–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2018.1506188

56.

Thaler

R. H.

Sunstein

C. R.

(2008). Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press.

57.

Tiffany

L. A.

Hautea

Besley

J. C.

Newman

T. P.

Dudo

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

58.

Trench

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

Claessens

Gascoigne

Metcalfe

Schiele

Shi

(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 Linden

. (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 Dyke

M. S.

Lee

N. 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.

Weingart

Joubert

(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.

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, 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.

0.00 MB

0.03 MB