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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The National Science Foundation's science and technology survey and support for science funding, 2006-2014.

This study investigates how well the main science and technology focused variables included in the General Social Survey (2006-2014) by the National Science Foundation do in predicting support for science funding. These questions form the primary basis of part of a biannual report to federal lawmakers. It is therefore important to consider whether the most useful variables are included in the survey. The results suggest some bivariate relationships between funding support and demographics, use of science communication channels, science knowledge, and attitudes about science and scientists. However, the overall predictive ability of the available variables appears to be modest when included together as part of multivariate analyses. The results suggest a need for additional discussions aimed at considering revisions to the core survey questions used to track views about science and technology in the United States.

Scientists' views about communication objectives.

This study looks at how United States-based academic scientists from five professional scientific societies think about eight different communication objectives. The degree to which scientists say they would prioritize these objectives in the context of face-to-face public engagement is statistically predicted using the scientists' attitudes, normative beliefs, and efficacy beliefs, as well as demographics and past communication activity, training, and past thinking about the objectives. The data allow for questions about the degree to which such variables consistently predict views about objectives. The research is placed in the context of assessing factors that communication trainers might seek to reshape if they wanted get scientists to consider choosing specific communication objectives.

Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships.

University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people's willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested.

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.

Scientists' Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement.

Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.

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.

Education, outreach, and inclusive engagement: Towards integrated indicators of successful program outcomes in participatory science.

The use and utility of science in society is often influenced by the structure, legitimacy, and efficacy of the scientific research process. Public participation in scientific research (PPSR) is a growing field of practice aimed at enhancing both public knowledge and understanding of science (education outreach) and the efficacy and responsiveness of scientific research, practice, and policy (participatory engagement). However, PPSR objectives focused on "education outreach" and "participatory engagement" have each emerged from diverse theoretical traditions that maintain distinct indicators of success used for program development and evaluation. Although areas of intersection and overlap among these two traditions exist in theory and practice, a set of comprehensive standards has yet to coalesce that supports the key principles of both traditions in an assimilated fashion. To fill this void, a comprehensive indicators framework is proposed with the goal of promoting a more integrative and synergistic PPSR program development and assessment process.

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.

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.