Strategic communication as planned behavior for science and risk communication: A theory-based approach to studying communicator choice.

This essay argues that we should treat science and risk communicators' choices about tactics, objectives, and goals as behaviors to advance both research and practice. Doing so allows for a discussion about how to use theories about behavior change and trust-building to help foster more strategic communication choices. The essay also seeks to anticipate and respond to potential arguments against using behavior change theories to encourage more strategic communication choices. We argue that it is possible to use behavior change tactics ethically if those tactics are aimed at increasing the likelihood that all participants in communication-including decisions makers like risk scientists-meaningfully engage with true, relevant information. Under the right conditions, such engagement is what should allow for the development of new knowledge, as well as a range of evidence-based evaluative beliefs, feelings, and frames. Being strategic when making choices about communication should also help with identifying situations in which justice, equity, diversity, or inclusion issues require additional attention. The essay concludes by noting that the difficulty of efficient and effective science and risk communication may require increased emphasis on getting experts such as scientists to collaborate with expert communication advisors. It may also be necessary to increase the capacity of science- and risk-focused communication practitioners.

Risk Researchers' Views About the Goal of Trying to Ensure Policymakers Consider Scientific Evidence.

A survey of members of a scientific society focused on risk analysis suggests substantial support for seeing their scientific society pursue the communication goal of "trying to ensure that policymakers consider scientific evidence." Support for pursuing this goal was largely predicted by researchers' beliefs that it was ethical for the society to pursue the goal, that it would be satisfying to see their society pursue the goal, and the belief that the society could have a positive impact on society by pursuing the goal. Normative beliefs about pursuing the goal and organizational efficacy beliefs were not good predictors of goal support. Goal support was measured using a direct measure of perceived goal importance as well as measures focused on the degree to which respondents wanted their society to put resources into providing members with opportunities to pursue the goal and the amount of funding that members thought the society should devote to pursuing the goal. The theory underlying the work argues that we can treat science communicators' choices about communication goals, objectives, and tactics as "planned behaviors" and thus study them using traditional behavior change models.

Be Mean or Be Nice? Understanding the Effects of Aggressive and Polite Communication Styles in Child Vaccination Debate.

The current study investigated the effect of communication style in the child vaccination debate. Based on expectancy violation theory, this study tested the effects of aggressive, neutral, and polite communication styles in the contexts of child vaccination, controlling for parents' attitudes toward the issue. The online experiment showed that expectancy violation significantly mediates the relationship between message style and outcomes. The results provided a novel way to understand the effect of communication style on child vaccination message and practical implications for health communicators to operate communication style during interactions in health contexts.

Conflict of Interest Mitigation Procedures May Have Little Influence on the Perceived Procedural Fairness of Risk-Related Research.

Two between-subject experiments explored perceived conflict of interest (COI)-operationalized as perceived procedural unfairness-in a hypothetical public-private research partnership to study the health risks of trans fats. Perceived fairness was measured as subjects' perceptions that health researchers would be willing to listen to a range of voices and minimize bias (i.e., COI) in the context of a research project. Experiment 1 (n = 1,263) randomly assigned research subjects to a partnership that included (1) a combination of an industry partner, a university partner, and a nongovernmental organization (NGO) partner; and (2) one of three processes aimed at mitigating the potential for COI to harm the quality of the research. The procedures included an arm's-length process meant to keep the university-based research team from being influenced by the other partners, an independent advisory board to oversee the project, and a commitment to making all data and analyses openly available. The results suggest that having an industry partner has substantial negative effects on perceived fairness and that the benefit of employing a single COI-mitigation process may be relatively small. Experiment 2 (n = 1,076) assessed a partnership of (1) a university and either an NGO or industry partner and (b) zero, one, two, or three of the three COI-mitigation procedures. Results suggest there is little value in combining COI-mitigation procedures. The study has implications for those who aim to foster confidence in scientific findings for which the underlying research may benefit from industry funding.

Messages promoting genetic modification of crops in the context of climate change: Evidence for psychological reactance.

Genetic modification (GM) of crops and climate change are arguably two of today's most challenging science communication issues. Increasingly, these two issues are connected in messages proposing GM as a viable option for ensuring global food security threatened by climate change. This study examines the effects of messages promoting the benefits of GM in the context of climate change. Further, it examines whether explicit reference to "climate change," or "global warming" in a GM message results in different effects than each other, or an implicit climate reference. An online sample of U.S. participants (N = 1050) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions: "climate change" cue, "global warming" cue, implicit cue, or control (no message). Generally speaking, framing GM crops as a way to help ensure global food security proved to be an effective messaging strategy in increasing positive attitudes toward GM. In addition, the implicit cue condition led to liberals having more positive attitudes and behavioral intentions toward GM than the "climate change" cue condition, an effect mediated by message evaluations.

Factors influencing U.S. consumer support for genetic modification to prevent crop disease.

This study examines support for the genetic modification (GM) of crops in the context of preventing "late blight," a devastating potato and tomato disease that caused the Irish Potato Famine in the 1850s and results in substantial crop loss today. We surveyed U.S. adults who do the primary grocery shopping in their household (n = 859). Half of the respondents were randomly assigned to read a vignette describing late blight before responding to questions about GM, whereas the other half read a vignette about generic crop disease before responding to questions. We also examine how the perceived fairness of decision makers relates to GM support and the perceived legitimacy of GM decision making. We found that disease specificity mattered less to support and legitimacy than the perceived fairness of decision makers. The perceived risks of GM to human and environmental health negatively related to GM support and legitimacy, whereas the perceived benefits (e.g. reduced threats to crops and a more secure food supply) positively related to support and legitimacy. Objective knowledge about GM had a small, negative relationship with legitimacy whereas self-assessed familiarity with GM had a positive relationship. Overall, the results offer additional confirmation of past findings from more localized settings that perceived fairness of decision makers matters to support for GM and underscore the importance of considering how risk managers' behaviors and actions are perceived alongside individuals' perceptions about the risks and benefits.

The impact of accident attention, ideology, and environmentalism on American attitudes toward nuclear energy.

This study involves the analysis of three waves of survey data about nuclear energy using a probability-based online panel of respondents in the United States. Survey waves included an initial baseline survey conducted in early 2010, a follow-up survey conducted in 2010 following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and an additional follow-up conducted just after the 2011 Fukushima, Japan, nuclear accident. The central goal is to assess the degree to which changes in public views following an accident are contingent on individual attention and respondent predispositions. Such results would provide real-world evidence of motivated reasoning. The primary analysis focuses on the impact of Fukushima and how the impact of individual attention to energy issues is moderated by both environmental views and political ideology over time. The analysis uses both mean comparisons and multivariate statistics to test key relationships. Additional variables common in the study of emerging technologies are included in the analysis, including demographics, risk and benefit perceptions, and views about the fairness of decisionmakers in both government and the private sector.

Communicating trust and trustworthiness through scientists' biographies: Benevolence beliefs.

A goal of many science communicators is to foster trust in scientists and their work. This study investigates if existing textual resources that scientists create in the course of their regular activities can be improved to enhance perceptions of scientists as trustworthy. Building on Mayer et al.'s integrative model of organizational trust, we examine how communicating benevolence through short biographies can affect trustworthiness perceptions using a 3 (degree of benevolence information: high, unspecified, low) × 3 (research area: crop genetics, corn and soy genetics, biotechnology use) survey design. We find that the degree of benevolence information significantly influences perceptions of benevolence and integrity, as well as willingness to trust, with these effects being consistent across different research areas. However, the degree of benevolence communicated had no significant effect on the perceived competence of the scientists. These findings underscore the importance of highlighting benevolence in communication to positively influence trustworthiness perceptions, thus offering insights for science communication practices.

How scientists view the public, the media and the political process.

We review past studies on how scientists view the public, the goals of communication, the performance and impacts of the media, and the role of the public in policy decision-making. We add to these past findings by analyzing two recent large-scale surveys of scientists in the UK and US. These analyses show that scientists believe the public is uninformed about science and therefore prone to errors in judgment and policy preferences. Scientists are critical of media coverage generally, yet they also tend to rate favorably their own experience dealing with journalists, believing that such interactions are important both for promoting science literacy and for career advancement. Scientists believe strongly that they should have a role in public debates and view policy-makers as the most important group with which to engage. Few scientists view their role as an enabler of direct public participation in decision-making through formats such as deliberative meetings, and do not believe there are personal benefits for investing in these activities. Implications for future research are discussed, in particular the need to examine how ideology and selective information sources shape scientists' views.

Pathways to support genetically modified (GM) foods in South Korea: Deliberate reasoning, information shortcuts, and the role of formal education.

Analyzing survey data on the issue of GM foods in South Korea, this study examines two competing routes - deliberate reasoning versus information shortcuts - to forming opinions on controversial science. Findings indicated that both deliberate reasoning and information shortcuts were in play; but the process was moderated by a person's education level. The well educated were more likely than the less educated to engage in deliberate reasoning when shaping their support for GM foods. Implications of the findings are discussed in detail.

Predicting scientists' participation in public life.

This research provides secondary data analysis of two large-scale scientist surveys. These include a 2009 survey of American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) members and a 2006 survey of university scientists by the United Kingdom's Royal Society. Multivariate models are applied to better understand the motivations, beliefs, and conditions that promote scientists' involvement in communication with the public and the news media. In terms of demographics, scientists who have reached mid-career status are more likely than their peers to engage in outreach, though even after controlling for career stage, chemists are less likely than other scientists to do so. In terms of perceptions and motivations, a deficit model view that a lack of public knowledge is harmful, a personal commitment to the public good, and feelings of personal efficacy and professional obligation are among the strongest predictors of seeing outreach as important and in participating in engagement activities.

What are you assessing when you measure "trust" in scientists with a direct measure?

This article analyzes three publicly available datasets focused on trust in science and scientists. It specifically seeks to understand what direct measures of trust (i.e. questions that directly ask respondents how much they trust scientists) assess in terms of discrete measures of trustworthiness (i.e. perceptions of scientists' ability, integrity, and benevolence). Underlying the analyses is a concern that direct measures of trust are a poor substitute for differentiating between discrete trustworthiness perceptions and behavioral trust in the form of a specific willingness to make oneself vulnerable. The research concludes that it is unclear what direct trust measures are capturing in any given context and suggests that researchers should better use trust-related theory when designing surveys and trust-focused campaigns. The secondary data used come from the General Social Survey, Gallup, and the Pew Research Center.

Does fairness matter in the context of anger about nuclear energy decision making?

Several recent studies have questioned whether nonoutcome forms of fairness matter in decision-making situations where individuals feel strongly engaged by the issue at hand. This survey-based study focuses on perceptions about a decision-making process related to a proposal to expand a nuclear power plant in the U.S. Southeast. It finds that anger moderates the impacts of outcome and procedural fairness on willingness to accept a decision process as satisfactory and legitimate. The more anger a person said he or she would feel if a decision were to contradict that person's point of view, the more perceived outcome and procedural fairness mattered. The study also finds that interpersonal fairness is also moderated by anger, but in the opposite direction. Interpersonal fairness had less of an impact on willingness to accept a decision for those who said they would feel angry if the decision did not go their preferred way.

Imagining public engagement.

Two separate studies look at how student samples conceptualize public engagement. The first study involves the quantitative analysis of an open-ended survey question and finds that participants have a range of ideas about what public decision-makers might do to consult the public but that most of these mechanisms involve very little opportunity for actual consultation. The second introduces a "draw a meeting test" and finds substantial homogeneity in how participants envisage this specific mechanism of public engagement. As with study 1, however, participants see little opportunity for citizens to have substantive opportunity for meaningful engagement with decision-makers. Overall, the research highlights the potential utility of broader research focused on how citizens envisage public meetings that includes testing the impact of public engagement perceptions on willingness to engage.

Science communication fellowship programs as gatekeepers.

Science communication fellowship programs act as gatekeepers to the skills and opportunities they provide scientists and science communicators. In this role, they may either resist or reproduce inequities present in society at large. We conducted interviews with 25 US-based science communication fellowship directors representing 23 programs to investigate (1) what types of capital these programs provide to fellows and (2) what rules and norms may shape access to these programs. Our results suggest that these programs connect fellows to rich forms of cultural and social capital in the form of experiential learning and mentorships. However, access to these programs is likely shaped by forms of infrastructure, literacy, and community acceptance. Maintaining the status quo in these organizations may not be enough to resist social inequity, and we finish this article with a call for reflexivity and actionable transformation within these programs.

Fairness and nanotechnology concern.

Research suggests that fairness perceptions matter to people who are asked to evaluate the acceptability of risks or risk management. Two separate national random surveys (n = 305 and n = 529) addressed Americans' concerns about and acceptance of nanotechnology risk management in the context of the degree to which they view scientists and risk managers as fair. The first survey investigated general views about scientists across four proposed dimensions of fairness (distributional, procedural, interpersonal, and informational). The results show that respondents who believe that the outcomes of scientific research tend to result in unequal benefits (distributional fairness) and that the procedures meant to protect the public from scientific research are biased (procedural fairness) were more concerned about nanotechnology. Believing scientists would treat them with respect (interpersonal fairness) and ensure access to information (informational fairness) were not significant predictors of concern. The second study also looked at these four dimensions of fairness but focused on perceptions of risk managers working for government, universities, and major companies. In addition to concern, it also examined acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Study 2 results were similar to those of study 1 for concern; however, only perceived informational fairness consistently predicted acceptance of nanotechnology risk management. Overall, the study points to the value of considering fairness perceptions in the study of public perceptions of nanotechnology.

Exploring scholars' public engagement goals in Canada and the United States.

We have little systematic knowledge about scholars' goals for public engagement in the academic literature. This study therefore provides a secondary analysis of two surveys of scholars that included closed-ended questions about goals. One survey from 2017 was from a sample of Canadian grant recipients from a federal science funding agency, while the second survey from 2018 comes from a sample of professors at top American research universities. The focus of this research is on both presenting novel data about scholars' expressed goals and exploring the relationships between these goals and potential predictors of these goals, including demographics, past engagement behavior, and overall views about public engagement. Areas for future research are then described.

A comparison between scientists' and communication scholars' views about scientists' public engagement activities.

This study investigated how communication scholars view scientists' public engagement as well as differences between how these scholars and natural and physical scientists think about the topic. The study used surveys of authors who recently published in five journals related to science communication alongside surveys of scientists from three prominent professional science societies. The results suggest that communication scholars ( N = 362) shared some views with the scientists ( N = 307, 373, 372) regarding scientists' performance, factors that influence engagement activities, and communication objectives, but potentially important differences were observed as well. Scientists have more positive beliefs about engagement norms and also rate their engagement efficacy relatively high. But communication scholars have higher expectations for online engagement amount. The findings address gaps in perceptions and performances from these two communities and suggest areas of potential emphasis for science communication training.

Strategic science communication as planned behavior: Understanding scientists' willingness to choose specific tactics.

Strategic science communicators need to select tactics that can help them achieve both their short-term communication objectives and long-term behavioral goals. However, little previous research has sought to develop theory aimed at understanding what makes it more likely that a communicator will prioritize specific communication tactics. The current study aims to advance the development of a theory of strategic science communication as planned behavior based on the Integrated Behavioral Model. It does so in the context of exploring Canadian scientists' self-reported willingness to prioritize six different tactics as a function of attitudinal, normative, and efficacy beliefs. The results suggest that scientists' beliefs about ethicality, norms, response efficacy, and self-efficacy, are all meaningful predictors of willingness to prioritize specific tactics. Differences between scientists in terms of demographics and related variables provide only limited benefit in predicting such willingness.

Individual- and community-level effects on risk perception in cancer cluster investigations.

This article focuses on the relative influence of individual versus community effects on risk perception. The study is grounded in literature examining how individuals manage information and make risk judgments in the context of suspected environmental cancer threats. We focus on three individual-level perspectives: the psychometric model of risk perception, an adaptation of the heuristic-systematic information processing model, and cancer anxiety. We also evaluate five sets of community-level variables that frame cancer cluster investigations: demographic, epidemiologic, sociologic, etiologic, and pathologic. Data were collected through a mail survey of 30 communities in which cancer cluster investigations were being conducted. Response rates averaged 43%, with 1,111 records in the final data set. Through multilevel modeling and other techniques, the results show that the individual-level model developed in previous work remains a robust description of risk perception in these cases. However, the analysis also shows that the community-level measures neither improve the individual-level model nor offer any substantial explanatory power of their own. We provisionally conclude that, within the context of cancer cluster investigations, risk perception is a phenomenon located in a common psychological dimension that is substantially independent of contextual influences. We also suggest that risk communication efforts in this specific context might successfully draw from a common approach informed more by individual than community factors.