When Scientists Share Their Struggles: How Scientists’ Self-Presentation on Social Media Influences Public Perceptions,Support for Science,and Information-Seeking Intentions

Abstract

Casual recommendations for scientists to “be human” and to “bring the public alongside the scientific process” have generated plethora of such interactions on social media. This study explores different self-presentation tactics, like sharing their research successes and failures, or contextualizing their research process, on how scientists and science issues are perceived by the public. In an online between-subjects experiment (N = 1,843), participants rated scientists who shared their failures as more benevolent and open, and as having more integrity, than those who only shared their successes. These perceptions further increased support for science and information-seeking intentions. The findings highlight how scientists’ self-presentation on social media can influence important science communication outcomes.

Keywords

self-presentation science communication public perceptions of scientists social media

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abitbol

Lee

N. M.

VanDyke

M. S.

(2022). Examining the perceived transparency of DTC genetic testing company communication and its impact on consumer trust, attitude and behavioral intentions. Journal of Communication Management, 26(3), 315–330. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCOM-01-2022-0006

Afifi

W. A.

Metts

(1998). Characteristics and consequences of expectation violations in close relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15(3), 365–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407598153004

Balog-Way

McComas

Besley

(2020). The evolving field of risk communication. Risk Analysis, 40(S1), 2240–2262. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13615

Besley

J. C.

Lee

N. M.

Pressgrove

(2021). Reassessing the variables used to measure public perceptions of scientists. Science Communication, 43(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547020949547

Bryant

(2003). Does Australia need a more effective policy of science communication? International Journal for Parasitology, 33(4), 357–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-7519(03)00004-3

Bukvova

(2011). Online impression management for scientists. All Sprouts Content, 11(140). https://aisel.aisnet.org/sprouts_all/455

Burgoon

J. K.

(1993). Interpersonal expectations, expectancy violations, and emotional communication. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 12(1–2), 30–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X93121003

Burgoon

J. K.

(2015). Expectancy violations theory. In The International encyclopedia of interpersonal communication (pp. 1–9). American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118540190.wbeic102

Caliandro

(2018). Digital Methods for Ethnography: Analytical Concepts for Ethnographers Exploring Social Media Environments. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 47(5), 551–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241617702960

10.

Cheplygina

Hermans

Albers

Bielczyk

Smeets

(2020). Ten simple rules for getting started on Twitter as a scientist. PLOS Computational Biology, 16(2), e1007513. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007513

11.

Chinn

Hasell

Roden

Zichettella

(2023). Threatening experts: Correlates of viewing scientists as a social threat. Public Understanding of Science, 9636625231183116. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231183115

12.

Cohen

(2001). Defining identification: A theoretical look at the identification of audiences with media characters. Mass Communication and Society, 4(3), 245–264. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327825MCS0403_01

13.

Coulehan

(2011). “A gentle and humane temper”: Humility in medicine. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 54(2), 206–216. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2011.0017

14.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Kohut

Neffinger

(2013). Connect, then lead. Harvard Business Review, 91(7–8), 54–61, 132.

15.

De Graaf

Hoeken

Sanders

Beentjes

J. W. J.

(2012). Identification as a mechanism of narrative persuasion. Communication Research, 39(6), 802–823. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650211408594

16.

D’Errico

(2020). Humility-based persuasion: Individual differences in elicited emotions and politician evaluation. International Journal of Communication, 14, Article 20.

17.

Duina

(2011). Winning: Reflections on an American obsession. Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7s521

18.

Fahy

Lewenstein

(2021). Scientists in popular culture: The making of celebrities. In Routledge handbook of public communication of science and technology (3rd ed.). Routledge.

19.

Fiske

S. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

Glick

(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005

20.

Fiske

S. T.

Dupree

(2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(supplement_4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111

21.

Fiske

S. T.

Neuberg

S. L.

(1990). A Continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2

22.

Goffman

(1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor.

23.

Goodell

(1977). The visible scientists. Little Brown.

24.

Greszki

Meyer

Schoen

(2015). Exploring the Effects of removing “too fast” responses and respondents from web surveys. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 79(2), 471–503.

25.

Hayes

A. F.

(2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100

26.

Hong

H.-Y.

Lin-Siegler

(2012). How learning about scientists’ struggles influences students’ interest and learning in physics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 469–484. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026224

27.

Huber

Barnidge

Gil

Zúñiga

Liu

(2019). Fostering public trust in science: The role of social media. Public Understanding of Science, 28(7), 759–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519869097

28.

Jamieson

K. H.

(2018). Crisis or self-correction: Rethinking media narratives about the well-being of science. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(11), 2620–2627. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1708276114

29.

Jarreau

P. B.

(2020, March 31). I’m a scientist and I want to use social media. Now what? Hindawi. https://www.hindawi.com/post/im-scientist-and-i-want-use-social-media-now-what/

30.

Jarreau

P. B.

Cancellare

I. A.

Carmichael

B. J.

Porter

Toker

Yammine

S. Z.

(2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625

31.

Jones

E. E.

Pittman

T. S.

(1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-presentation. In Suls

(Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (Vol. 1, pp. 231–262). Hillsdale.

32.

Jünger

Fähnrich

(2020). Does really no one care? Analyzing the public engagement of communication scientists on Twitter. New Media & Society, 22(3), 387–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819863413

33.

Kim

Skurka

Madden

(2024). The effects of self-disclosure and gender on a climate scientist’s credibility and likability on social media. Public Understanding of Science, 09636625231225073. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231225073

34.

Kreuter

M. W.

Green

M. C.

Cappella

J. N.

Slater

M. D.

Wise

M. E.

Storey

Clark

E. M.

O’Keefe

D. J.

Erwin

D. O.

Holmes

Hinyard

L. J.

Houston

Woolley

(2007). Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application. Annals of Behavioral Medicine: A Publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, 33(3), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02879904

35.

Lin-Siegler

Ahn

J. N.

Chen

Fang

F.-F. A.

Luna-Lucero

(2016). Even Einstein struggled: Effects of learning about great scientists’ struggles on high school students’ motivation to learn science. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 314–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000092

36.

Maccoby

E. E.

Wilson

W. C.

(1957). Identification and observational learning from films. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043015

37.

McNutt

(2016). Taking up TOP. Science, 352(6290), 1147–1147. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aag2359

38.

Nisbet

M. C.

Brossard

Kroepsch

(2003). Framing science: The stem cell controversy in an age of press/politics. Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics, 8(2), 36–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X02251047

39.

Nisbet

E. C.

Cooper

K. E.

Garrett

R. K.

(2015). The Partisan Brain: How Dissonant Science Messages Lead Conservatives and Liberals to (Dis)Trust Science. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 36–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716214555474

40.

Ophir

Jamieson

K. H.

(2021). The effects of media narratives about failures and discoveries in science on beliefs about and support for science. Public Understanding of Science, 30(8), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625211012630

41.

Orgad

(2024). Posting vulnerability on LinkedIn. New Media & Society, 14614448241243094. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448241243094

42.

Paharia

Keinan

Avery

Schor

J. B.

(2011). The underdog effect: The marketing of disadvantage and determination through brand biography. Journal of Consumer Research, 37(5), 775–790. https://doi.org/10.1086/656219

43.

Petty

Wegener

(1999). The elaboration likelihood model: Current status and controversies. In Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 41–72).

44.

Petty

R. E.

Priester

J. R.

Briñol

(2002). Mass media attitude change: Implications of the elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 155–198). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

45.

Pornpitakpan

(2004). The persuasiveness of source credibility: A critical review of five decades’ evidence. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34(2), 243–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02547.x

46.

Rainie

Funk

Anderson

(2015, February 15). How scientists engage the public. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/02/15/how-scientists-engage-public/

47.

Roussin

C. J.

Webber

S. S.

(2012). Impact of Organizational Identification and Psychological Safety on Initial Perceptions of Coworker Trustworthiness. Journal of Business and Psychology, 27(3), 317–329. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-011-9245-2

48.

Satterwhite

A. K.

Luchner

A. F.

(2016). Exploring the relationship among perceived resilience, dependency, and self-criticism: The role of culture and social support. North American Journal of Psychology, 18(1), 71–84.

49.

Washington

Dr.

LaShawn Faith [@ShawnTheScholar]. (2024, March 18). PhD Rejections. Twitter. https://twitter.com/ShawnTheScholar/status/1769623677136420903

50.

Wolf

J. M.

(2017). The multipurpose tool of social media: Applications for scientists, science communicators, and educators. Clinical Microbiology Newsletter, 39(10), 75–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2017.04.003

51.

Zhang

A. L.

(2022). Behind the lab coat: How scientists’ self-disclosure on Twitter influences source perceptions, tweet engagement, and scientific attitudes through social presence. New Media & Society. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221141681

52.

Zhang

A. L.

(2023). Scientists as influencers: The role of source identity, self-disclosure, and anti-intellectualism in science communication on social media. Social Media + Society, 9(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051231180623

53.

Zhao

Salehi

Naranjit

Alwaalan

Voida

Cosley

(2013). The many faces of Facebook: Experiencing social media as performance, exhibition, and personal archive. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470656

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

0.19 MB