Beyond Informing and Entertaining: Developing and Validating a Scale for Perceived Effects of Watching Science Videos on Social Media

Abstract

In algorithmically curated environments where science videos reach audiences primarily through incidental exposure rather than active seeking, understanding viewers’ perceived effects provides insights for communicating science effectively. We developed and validated a multidimensional scale measuring perceived effects of watching science videos through three sequential studies. Study 1 used an open-ended survey to generate items (N = 150), Study 2 employed a close-ended survey for factor identification (N = 309), and Study 3 tested criterion validity (N = 286). We identified five dimensions of perceived effects: information acquisition, practical application, enjoyment, time-passing, and social interaction. These dimensions show varied associations with content exposure and perceptions of science.

Keywords

science videos science communication entertainment media social media scale development

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Asuero

A. G.

Sayago

González

A. G.

(2006). The correlation coefficient: An overview. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 36(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408340500526766

Bao

Calice

M. N.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Markowitz

E. M.

(2024). Are productive scientists more willing to engage with the public? Science Communication, 46(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231217682

Bourk

León

Davis

L. S.

(2018). Entertainment in science: Useful in small doses. In León

Bourk

(Eds.), Communicating science and technology through online video (pp. 90–106). Routledge.

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

(2022). The chronic growing pains of communicating science online. Science, 375(6581), 613–614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo0668

Calice

M. N.

Bao

Beets

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Feinstein

N. W.

Heisler

Tangen

Handelsman

(2023). A triangulated approach for understanding scientists’ perceptions of public engagement with science. Public Understanding of Science, 32(3), 389–406. https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221122285

Carmines

E. G.

Zeller

R. A.

(1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412985642

Chae

S. W.

Hara

Shiroiya

H. R.

Chen

Ogihara

(2024). Being vulnerable with viewers: Exploring how medical YouTubers communicated about COVID-19 with the public. PLOS ONE, 19(12), Article e0313857. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0313857

Chi

E. H.

(2015, March 29–April 1). Blurring of the boundary between interactive search and recommendation [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, Atlanta, GA, United States. https://doi.org/10.1145/2678025.2700998

Cingel

D. P.

Krcmar

Marple

Snyder

A. L.

(2023). The development and validation of a measure of moral intuition salience for children and adolescents: The Moral Intuitions and Development Scale. Journal of Communication, 73(2), 179–191. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqac049

10.

Dessart

(2017). Social media engagement: A model of antecedents and relational outcomes. Journal of Marketing Management, 33(5–6), 375–399. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X.2017.1302975

11.

Dudo

Brossard

Shanahan

Scheufele

D. A.

Morgan

Signorielli

(2011). Science on television in the 21st century: Recent trends in portrayals and their contributions to public attitudes toward science. Communication Research, 38(6), 754–777. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650210384988

12.

Eichmeier

A. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2024). CRISPR is easy: Exposure to Last Week Tonight enhances knowledge about gene editing. PLOS ONE, 19(10), Article e0306563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0306563

13.

Freytag

Possler

(2024). How dual-message nature documentaries that portray nature as amazing and threatened affect entertainment experiences and pro-environmental intentions. Journal of Communication, 74(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad044

14.

Frick

Grommes

E.-M.

Watanabe

(2025). Science communication on TikTok: Toward transformative and post-normal science. Frontiers in Communication, 10, Article 1491250. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2025.1491250

15.

Füchslin

Schäfer

M. S.

Metag

(2019). Who wants to be a citizen scientist? Identifying the potential of citizen science and target segments in Switzerland. Public Understanding of Science, 28(6), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662519852020

16.

Funk

Rainie

Caiazza

(2018). The science people see on social media. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2018/03/21/the-science-people-see-on-social-media/

17.

García-Avilés

J. A.

de Lara

(2018). An overview of science online video: Designing a classification of formats. In León

Bourk

(Eds.), Communicating science and technology through online video (pp. 15–27). Routledge.

18.

Habibi

S. A.

Salim

(2021). Static vs. dynamic methods of delivery for science communication: A critical analysis of user engagement with science on social media. PLOS ONE, 16(3), Article e0248507. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248507

19.

Hardy

B. W.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2005). Examining differential gains from internet use: Comparing the moderating role of talk and online interactions. Journal of Communication, 55(1), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/55.1.71

20.

Haridakis

Hanson

(2009). Social interaction and co-viewing with YouTube: Blending mass communication reception and social connection. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 53(2), 317–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838150902908270

21.

L.-t.

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.

22.

Huang

Yang

(2024). Auditing entertainment traps on YouTube: How do recommendation algorithms pull users away from news. Political Communication, 41, 903–920. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2343769

23.

Krause

N. M.

Freiling

Scheufele

D. A.

(2025). Our changing information ecosystem for science and why it matters for effective science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(27), Article e2400928121. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2400928121

24.

Shen

(2023). Unpacking multimodal fact-checking: Features and engagement of fact-checking videos on Chinese TikTok (Douyin). Social Media + Society, 9(1), 20563051221150406. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051221150406

25.

Malik

(2024, October 23). TikTok will now show its STEM feed to adults, not just teens. TechCruch. https://techcrunch.com/2024/10/23/tiktok-will-now-show-its-stem-feed-to-adults-not-just-teens/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

26.

McLeod

J. M.

Pan

(2005). Concept explication and theory construction. In Dunwoody

Becker

L. B.

McCleod

D. M.

Kosicki

G. M.

(Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 13–76). Hampton.

27.

Metag

(2020). What drives science media use? Predictors of media use for information about science and research in digital information environments. Public Understanding of Science, 29(6), 561–578. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520935062

28.

Montes

Wargo

Jones-Jang

S. M.

Quan

Lai

Riobueno-Naylor

(2025). Evaluating video-based science communications practices: A systematic review. Journal of Science Communication, 24(3), V01. https://jcom.sissa.it/article/pubid/JCOM_2403_2025_V01/

29.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2008). Science, evolution, and creationism. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/11876

30.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/23674

31.

Newman

Fletcher

Robertson

C. T.

Arguedas

A. R.

Nielsen

R. K.

(2024). Reuters Institute digital news report 2024. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2024

32.

Nisbet

M. C.

Scheufele

D. A.

Shanahan

Moy

Brossard

Lewenstein

B. V.

(2002). Knowledge, reservations, or promise? A media effects model for public perceptions of science and technology. Communication Research, 29(5), 584–608. https://doi.org/10.1177/009365002236196

33.

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/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x

34.

Rosenthal

(2018). Motivations to seek science videos on YouTube: Free-choice learning in a connected society. International Journal of Science Education, Part B, 8(1), 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2017.1371357

35.

Rubin

A. M.

(1983). Television uses and gratifications: The interactions of viewing patterns and motivations. Journal of Broadcasting, 27(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1080/08838158309386471

36.

Ruzi

S. A.

Lee

N. M.

Smith

A. A.

(2021). Testing how different narrative perspectives achieve communication objectives and goals in online natural science videos. PLOS ONE, 16(10), Article e0257866. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0257866

37.

Scheufele

D. A.

(2022). Understanding (perceptions of) emerging information ecologies. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 24(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221092022

38.

Smith

L. F.

Smith

J. K.

Arcand

K. K.

Smith

R. K.

Bookbinder

Keach

(2010). Aesthetics and astronomy: Studying the public’s perception and understanding of imagery from space. Science Communication, 33(2), 201–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547010379579

39.

Steinke

Gilbert

Coletti

Levin

S. H.

Suk

Oeldorf-Hirsch

(2024). Women in STEM on TikTok: Advancing visibility and voice through STEM identity expression. Social Media + Society, 10(3), 20563051241274675. https://doi.org/10.1177/20563051241274675

40.

Tavakol

Dennick

(2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd

41.

Thorson

Wells

(2016). Curated flows: A framework for mapping media exposure in the digital age. Communication Theory, 26(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/comt.12087

42.

TikTok. (2023, March 14). Take discovery to a new level with the STEM feed. https://newsroom.tiktok.com/take-discovery-to-a-new-level-with-stem-feed?lang=en

43.

Trochim

W. M.

Donnelly

J. P.

Arora

(2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.

44.

Unay-Gailhard

İ.

Lawson

Brennan

M. A

. (2023). An examination of digital empathy: When farmers speak for the climate through TikTok. Journal of Rural Studies, 102, 103075. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2023.103075

45.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2013). The differential susceptibility to media effects model. Journal of Communication, 63(2), 221–243. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12024

46.

West

(2024). 49 YouTube stats 2024: Engagement, views, revenue (and more). descript. https://www.descript.com/blog/article/49-youtube-stats-2023-engagement-views-revenue-and-more

47.

Zhang

(2024). Science fiction and self-transcendence: Evidence from retrospective, experimental, and longitudinal studies. Journal of Communication, 74(1), 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqad042

48.

Yang

Sundar

S. S.

(2024). Machine heuristic: Concept explication and development of a measurement scale. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 29(6), zmae019. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmae019

49.

Yang

Brossard

Scheufele

D. A.

Xenos

M. A.

(2022). The science of YouTube: What factors influence user engagement with online science videos? PLOS ONE, 17(5), Article e0267697. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267697

50.

Yeo

S. K.

Becker

A. B.

Cacciatore

M. A.

Anderson

A. A.

Patel

(2022). Humor can increase perceived communicator effectiveness regardless of race, gender, and expertise—If you are funny enough. Science Communication, 44(5), 593–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221132278

51.

Yuan

Dudo

Besley

J. C.

(2019). Scientific societies’ support for public engagement: An interview study. International Journal of Science Education Part B-Communication and Public Engagement, 9(2), 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/21548455.2019.1576240

52.

Zawacki

E. E.

Bohon

Johnson

Charlevoix

D. J.

(2022). Exploring TikTok as a promising platform for geoscience communication. Geoscience Communication, 5(4), 363–380. https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-5-363-2022

53.

Zhang

Wang

(2023, April 23–28). Understanding communication strategies and viewer engagement with science knowledge videos on Bilibili [Conference session]. Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Hamburg, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581476