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.
AsueroA. G.SayagoA.GonzálezA. G. (2006). The correlation coefficient: An overview. Critical Reviews in Analytical Chemistry, 36(1), 41–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408340500526766
2.
BaoL.CaliceM. N.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.MarkowitzE. M. (2024). Are productive scientists more willing to engage with the public?Science Communication, 46(1), 65–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470231217682
3.
BourkM.LeónB.DavisL. S. (2018). Entertainment in science: Useful in small doses. In LeónB.BourkM. (Eds.), Communicating science and technology through online video (pp. 90–106). Routledge.
4.
BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A. (2022). The chronic growing pains of communicating science online. Science, 375(6581), 613–614. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abo0668
5.
CaliceM. N.BaoL.BeetsB.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.FeinsteinN. W.HeislerL.TangenT.HandelsmanJ. (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
ChaeS. W.HaraN.ShiroiyaH. R.ChenJ.OgiharaE. (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
8.
ChiE. H. (2015, March29–April1). 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
9.
CingelD. P.KrcmarM.MarpleC.SnyderA. 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.
DessartL. (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.
DudoA.BrossardD.ShanahanJ.ScheufeleD. A.MorganM.SignorielliN. (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.
EichmeierA. A.XenosM. 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.
FreytagA.PosslerD. (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.
FrickC.GrommesE.-M.WatanabeA. (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.
FüchslinT.SchäferM. S.MetagJ. (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
García-AvilésJ. A.de LaraA. (2018). An overview of science online video: Designing a classification of formats. In LeónB.BourkM. (Eds.), Communicating science and technology through online video (pp. 15–27). Routledge.
18.
HabibiS. A.SalimL. (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.
HardyB. W.ScheufeleD. 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.
HaridakisP.HansonG. (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.
HuL.-t.BentlerP. 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.
HuangS.YangT. (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.
KrauseN. M.FreilingI.ScheufeleD. 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.
LuY.ShenC. (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
McLeodJ. M.PanZ. (2005). Concept explication and theory construction. In DunwoodyS.BeckerL. B.McCleodD. M.KosickiG. M. (Eds.), The evolution of key mass communication concepts honoring Jack M. McLeod (pp. 13–76). Hampton.
27.
MetagJ. (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.
MontesM.WargoJ.Jones-JangS. M.QuanS.LaiB.Riobueno-NaylorA. (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
NisbetM. C.ScheufeleD. A.ShanahanJ.MoyP.BrossardD.LewensteinB. 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.
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/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01585.x
34.
RosenthalS. (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.
RubinA. 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.
RuziS. A.LeeN. M.SmithA. 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.
ScheufeleD. A. (2022). Understanding (perceptions of) emerging information ecologies. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 24(2), 141–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/15226379221092022
38.
SmithL. F.SmithJ. K.ArcandK. K.SmithR. K.BookbinderJ.KeachK. (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.
SteinkeJ.GilbertC.ColettiA.LevinS. H.SukJ.Oeldorf-HirschA. (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.
TavakolM.DennickR. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
41.
ThorsonK.WellsC. (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
TrochimW. M.DonnellyJ. P.AroraK. (2016). Research methods: The essential knowledge base (2nd ed.). Cengage Learning.
44.
Unay-Gailhardİ.LawsonK.BrennanM. 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.
ValkenburgP. M.PeterJ. (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
WuF.ZhangZ. (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.
YangH.SundarS. 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.
YangS.BrossardD.ScheufeleD. A.XenosM. 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.
YeoS. K.BeckerA. B.CacciatoreM. A.AndersonA. A.PatelK. (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.
YuanS.DudoA.BesleyJ. 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.
ZawackiE. E.BohonW.JohnsonS.CharlevoixD. 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.
ZhangY.HeC.WangH.LuZ. (2023, April23–28). 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
