The present study empirically tests video production tactics for TikTok- and Instagram-like videos that can be employed to achieve specific, short-term communication objectives. Using the Strategic (Science) Communication as Planned Behavior (SCPB) model as a framework, a between-subjects experiment varies the race/ethnicity of the speaker, the tone of the video, and the inclusion of references to pop culture to examine how these tactics are related to curiosity, enjoyment, and motivations to follow similar content online. We use a representative sample of U.S. adults with oversampling of underrepresented STEM groups. Findings and implications are discussed.
American Association for the Advancement of Science. (1998). Project 2061: Blueprints for reform in science, mathematics, and technology education. American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). https://www.project2061.org/publications/bfr/online/blpintro.htm.
AppleW.StreeterL. A.KraussR. M. (1979). Effects of pitch and speech rate on personal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(5), 715–727. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.5.715
5.
BayesR.DruckmanJ. N.SafarpourA. C. (2022). Studying science inequities: How to use surveys to study diverse populations. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 220–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221093970
6.
BerlyneD. E. (1960). Conflict, arousal, and curiosity. McGraw-Hill.
7.
BesleyJ. C.DudoA. (2022). Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice. Risk Analysis. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.14029
8.
BesleyJ. C.YeoS. K.NewmanT. P.DudoA. (2024). The challenge of identifying behavioral goals for communication in the context of basic science. Journal of Science Communication, 23(7), Y02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23070402
9.
BoyleG. J. (1989). Breadth-depth or state-trait curiosity? A factor analysis of state-trait curiosity and state anxiety scales. Personality and Individual Differences, 10(2), 175–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(89)90201-8
10.
BozzatoP.FabrisM. A.LongobardiC. (2021). Gender, stereotypes and grade level in the draw-a-scientist test in Italian schoolchildren. International Journal of Science Education, 43(16), 2640–2662. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2021.1982062
11.
Byars-WinstonA. (2014). Toward a framework for multicultural STEM-focused career interventions. The Career Development Quarterly, 62(4), 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2161-0045.2014.00087.x
12.
CanfieldK. N.MenezesS.MatsudaS. B.MooreA.Mosley AustinA. 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. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00002
13.
DasguptaN. (2011). Ingroup experts and peers as social vaccines who inoculate the self-concept: The stereotype inoculation model. Psychological Inquiry, 22(4), 231–246. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23208698
14.
DasguptaN.StoutJ. G. (2014). Girls and women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: STEMing the tide and broadening participation in STEM careers. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214549471
15.
DawsonE. (2018). Reimagining publics and (non) participation: Exploring exclusion from science communication through the experiences of low-income, minority ethnic groups. Public Understanding of Science, 27(7), 772–786. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517750072
DiddiA.LaRoseR. (2006). Getting hooked on news: Uses and gratifications and the formation of news habits among college students in an Internet environment. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 50(2), 193–210. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem5002_2
18.
DruckmanJ. N.OgnyanovaK.BaumM. A.LazerD.PerlisR. H.VolpeJ. D.SantillanaM.ChweH.QuintanaA.SimonsonM. (2021). The role of race, religion, and partisanship in misperceptions about COVID-19. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 24(4), 638–657. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220985912
19.
DunhamY.BaronA. S.BanajiM. R. (2008). The development of implicit intergroup cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2008.04.006
20.
FishbeinM. (2009). An integrative model for behavioral prediction and its application to health promotion. In Emerging theories in health promotion practice and research (2nd ed., pp. 215–234). Wiley.
21.
FiskeS. T.DupreeC. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Suppl. 4), 13593–13597. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1317505111
Gelinas-ChebatC.ChebatJ.-C. (1992). Effects of two voice characteristics on the attitudes toward advertising messages. Journal of Social Psychology, 132(4), 447–459. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1992.9924724
24.
GinnsP.MartinA. J.MarshH. W. (2013). Designing instructional text in a conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9228-0
25.
GregoryS. W.GallagherT. J. (2002). Spectral analysis of candidates’ nonverbal vocal communication: Predicting U.S. presidential election outcomes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(3), 298–308. https://doi.org/10.2307/3090125
26.
GrossM. E.ZedeliusC. M.SchoolerJ. W. (2020). Cultivating an understanding of curiosity as a seed for creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 35, 77–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2020.07.015
27.
HardyJ. H.NessA. M.MeccaJ. (2017). Outside the box: Epistemic curiosity as a predictor of creative problem solving and creative performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 230–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.004
28.
HayesA. F. (2022). Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach(3rd ed.). Guilford Publications.
29.
Hazrati GhasemgheshlaghiS.MahdavinasabY.GhasemtabarS. (2022). The effect of the conversational education style and formal education style application in the augmented reality on eighth-grade students’ learning in science courses. Technology of Education Journal (TEJ), 16(3), 451–466. https://doi.org/10.22061/tej.2022.8072.2618
30.
HurtadoS.EaganM. K.TranM. C.NewmanC. B.ChangM. J.VelascoP. (2011). “We do science here”: Underrepresented students’ interactions with faculty in different college contexts. Journal of Social Issues, 67(3), 553–579. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01714.x
JarreauP. B.CancellareI. A.CarmichaelB. J.PorterL.TokerD.YammineS. Z. (2019). Using selfies to challenge public stereotypes of scientists. PLOS ONE, 14(5), e0216625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216625
33.
JoyA.MathewsC. J.Hartstone-RoseA.MulveyK. L. (2025). What does a scientist look like? Children’s perceptions of scientist gender and skin tone. School Science and Mathematics, 125(6), 631–643. https://doi.org/10.1111/ssm.18308
34.
JuddK.McKinnonM. (2021). A systematic map of inclusion, equity and diversity in science communication research: Do we practice what we preach?Frontiers in Communication, 6. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.744365
35.
KatzE.BlumlerJ. G.GurevitchM. (1973). Uses and gratifications research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 37(4), 508–523.
36.
KatzE.HaasH.GurevitchM. (1973). On the use of the mass media for important things. American Sociological Review, 38(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094393
LoshS. C. (2010). Stereotypes about scientists over time among US adults: 1983 and 2001. Public Understanding of Science, 19(3), 372–382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662508098576
41.
MartinC.MacDonaldB. H. (2020). Using interpersonal communication strategies to encourage science conversations on social media. PLOS ONE, 15(11), e0241972. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241972
42.
MarxD. M.RomanJ. S. (2002). Female role models: Protecting women’s math test performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(9), 1183–1193. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672022812004
43.
MayerR. C.DavisJ. H.SchoormanF. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.2307/258792
MehrabianA.WilliamsM. (1969). Nonverbal concomitants of perceived and intended persuasiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(1), 37–58. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027993
47.
MetagJ.SchäferM. S. (2018). Audience segments in environmental and science communication: Recent findings and future perspectives. Environmental Communication, 12(8), 995–1004. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1521542
48.
MillerD. I.NollaK. M.EaglyA. H.UttalD. H. (2018). The development of children’s gender-science stereotypes: A meta-analysis of 5 decades of U.S. Draw-A-Scientist studies. Child Development, 89(6), 1943–1955. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13039
49.
MontanoD. E.KasprzykD. (2015, July). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In GlanzK.RimerB. K.ViswanathK. (Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 95–124). John Wiley.
NiH.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.FreilingI. (2025, June). What does science mean to you? Perceptions of science from underrepresented groups. Paper accepted for presentation at the annual convention of the International Communication Association (ICA), Denver, CO, USA.
52.
NisbetM. C.DudoA. (2013, January). Entertainment media portrayals and their effects on the public understanding of science. In Hollywood chemistry (pp. 241-249, Vol. 1139). American Chemical Society. https://doi.org/10.1021/bk-2013-1139.ch020
53.
PalmgreenP.RayburnJ. D.II. (1985). A comparison of gratification models of media satisfaction. Communication Monographs, 52(4), 334–346. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637758509376116
PearceW. B.ConklinF. (1971). Nonverbal vocalic communication and perceptions of a speaker. Speech Monographs, 38(3), 235–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637757109375715
56.
PenpraseB. E. (2020). History of STEM in the USA. In PenpraseB. E. (Ed.), STEM education for the 21st century (pp. 1–16). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41633-1_1
57.
PerkowitzS. (2007). Hollywood science: Movies, science, and the end of the world. Columbia University Press.
58.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of Persuasion. In PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (Eds.), Communication and Persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change (pp. 124–205). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4964-1_1
59.
RasekoalaE. (Ed.) (2023, July). Race and Sociocultural Inclusion in Science Communication: Innovation, Decolonisation, and Transformation. Bristol University Press. https://doi.org/10.56687/9781529226829
60.
RennekampK. M.WitzP. D. (2021). Linguistic formality and audience engagement: Investors’ reactions to characteristics of social media disclosures. Contemporary Accounting Research, 38(3), 1748–1781. https://doi.org/10.1111/1911-3846.12661
61.
ScheufeleD. A. (2013). Communicating science in social settings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(Suppl. 3), 14040–14047. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1213275110
62.
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://www.jstor.org/stable/20159304
63.
SteeleC. M.AronsonJ. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(5), 797–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.797
64.
SteinkeJ. (2017). Adolescent girls’ STEM identity formation and media images of STEM professionals: Considering the influence of contextual cues. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00716
65.
SteinkeJ.ApplegateB.PennyJ. R.MerlinoS. (2022). Effects of diverse STEM role model videos in promoting adolescents’ identification. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 20(2), 255–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-021-10168-z
66.
SuL. Y.-F.McKasyM.CacciatoreM. A.YeoS. K.DeGrauwA. R.ZhangJ. S. (2022). Generating science buzz: An examination of multidimensional engagement with humorous scientific messages on Twitter and Instagram. Science Communication, 44(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470211063902
67.
TajfelH. (1981). Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge University Press.
68.
TajfelH.BilligM. G.BundyR. P.FlamentC. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1(2), 149–178. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
69.
TajfelH.TurnerJ. C. (2004). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Political psychology (pp. 276–293). Psychology Press.
70.
TamboriniR.GrizzardM.BowmanN. D.ReineckeL.LewisR. J.EdenA. (2011). Media enjoyment as need satisfaction: The contribution of hedonic and nonhedonic needs. Journal of Communication, 61(6), 1025–1042. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01593.x
71.
Valdez-WardE.UlrichR. N.BennettN.Martinez-MaldonadoE.MattheisA.TresederK. K.TakahashiB.MenezesS. (2024). Science communicators from marginalized backgrounds challenge STEM cultural norms to promote community belonging. Journal of Science Communication, 23(4), A01. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23040201
72.
ViswanathK.McCloudR. F.LeeE. W. J.BekaluM. A. (2022). Measuring what matters: Data absenteeism, science communication, and the perpetuation of inequities. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 208–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027162221093268
73.
WuJ.ChenJ.ChenH.DouW.ShaoD. (2019). What to say on social media and how: Effects of communication style and function on online customer engagement in China. Journal of Service Theory and Practice, 29(5/6), 691–707. https://doi.org/10.1108/JSTP-11-2018-0243
74.
YeoS. K.CacciatoreM. A.FreilingI.SuL. Y.-F.ZhangJ. S.McKasyM.ChoiS. I. (2025). Understanding knowledge among White, Black, and Hispanic audiences: Media attention and inequities in factual and perceived knowledge. Mass Communication and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2024.2440320
75.
YeoS. K.McKasyM. (2021). Emotion and humor as misinformation antidotes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(15). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2002484118
76.
ZillmannD. (1988). Mood management: Using entertainment to full advantage. In DonohewL.SypherH. E.HigginsE. T. (Eds.), Communication, social cognition, and affect (pp. 147–171). Psychology Press.
