Search

As the tenor of climate change debates continues to intensify, it is critical to understand how shifts in style and target affect individuals’ proenvironmental behaviors. Using two online experiments, we investigated how these changes can violate expectations in ways that affect persuasive power. The results suggest that an aggressive style is likely to expectancy violation, which negatively affects individuals’ private- and public-sphere behavioral intentions. Differences in the framing of responsibility between individuals and institutions had limited impacts. The findings offer insights and practical implications for environmental communicators on how communication styles and framing affect efforts to shift climate change behaviors.

We have witnessed an increasing amount of science podcasts, and it has emerged as an important venue for science communication. From a strategic science communication perspective, this study investigated how science podcasters view science communication–related goals and objectives, as well as the tactics they use in producing science communication content based on the theory of planned behavior. A survey ( N = 147) with science podcasters showed that they see excitement and interest in science as their most prioritized objective and present the value of science over time. In addition, our results showed that podcasters frequently use communication tactics, but it may not have resulted from planned strategic communication action. The findings of this study provide initial insight into podcasters’ views and practice as part of the science communication effort.

This study identifies key characteristics of current science communication training programs based in North America. We report findings from semistructured interviews conducted with science communication trainers ( N = 32) that examined programs’ curricula, trainees, and impacts. Findings suggest that the current landscape of science communication training is one where a range of well-intentioned individuals and groups provide guidance to mostly self-selecting scientists. Training typically involves helping scientists find and refine their own message and then expecting these individuals to find their own opportunities to communicate. Programs commonly emphasize technical communication skills more than strategy, rarely conduct robust evaluation, and are not typically designed to enhance inclusivity. Researcher-trainer partnerships can help maximize the reach and positive impacts of these programs.

The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment ( N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.

A randomized experiment of 1,024 U.S. adults was conducted to examine the effect of the war on science frame on perceptions of scientists’ credibility. Because recent use of this frame is a response to the Trump Administration, those who politically align with him (e.g., conservatives) are likely to experience identity threat when confronted with the war on science frame. Results show that when viewed as aggressive, the war on science frame prompted conservatives to report lower agreement with a scientist credibility index than liberals, suggesting that the war on science frame has the potential to further polarize science.

A set of parallel surveys of scientists from multiple scientific societies finds that the most consistent predictors of willingness to take part in engagement activities with the public are a belief that she or he will enjoy the experience (attitude), make a difference through engagement (response efficacy), and has the time to engage. Age, sex, scientific field, what a scientist thinks about the public, perceived personal engagement skill (self-efficacy), and what a scientist thinks about her or his colleagues (normative beliefs) are inconsistent predictors. Research may be needed to find how to shape scientists’ engagement views in ways that are both effective and acceptable.

Qualitative interviews with science communication trainers ( n = 24) on the role of objectives and goals in training efforts suggest that trainers believe that scientists come to training with a range of long-term goals in mind. However, trainers appear to focus on teaching communication skills and are relatively unlikely to focus on identifying specific communication objectives as a means of achieving scientists’ goals. The communication objective that trainers consistently report emphasizing is knowledge building. Other potential objectives such as fostering excitement, building trust, and reframing issues were rarely raised. Research aimed at helping trainers foster strategic communication capacity is proposed.