This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation (NSF, Grant AISL 1421214-1421723. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the NSF.

Do scientists who study ‘risky’ topics communicate more and have different

goals and objectives?

Our NSF grant goals …• Help trainers understand how

scientists are thinking about engagement• Help trainers identify drivers of engagement,

including drivers of goals and objectives• Get more scientists to communicate

more strategically (i.e., set and achieve goals)

Tactics Communication Objectives

Ultimate Goals

Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific SocietiesType of society Resp.

NResp. Rate

Univ. n

Avg. AgeAll/Univ.

MaleAll/Univ.

WhiteAll/Univ.

General 1,263 9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91%

Chemistry 1,919 8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%

Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%

Microbiology 1,167 9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84%

Geological 1,103 10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90%

Geophysical 2,419 10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90%

Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92%

Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%

Notes: General society received 5 contacts; ecological society received 3 contacts. All other societies received 4 contacts. Sample for some reported questions smaller because of sample splitting by engagement mode. All data presented preliminary.

We will focus on:1. university respondents to

allow for best comparisons2. Societies where we asked

about risk profile of research

Our survey data: U.S.-Based Scientific SocietiesType of society Resp.

NResp. Rate

Univ. n

Avg. AgeAll/Univ.

MaleAll/Univ.

WhiteAll/Univ.

General 1,263 9% 1130 61/62 69/70% 85/91%

Chemistry 1,919 8% 601 55/51 72/66% 78/89%

Biochemistry 513 6% 384 57/55 63/61% 78/85%

Microbiology 1,167 9% 716 57/54 56/55% 75/84%

Geological 1,103 10% 971 51/51 59/65% 88/90%

Geophysical 2,419 10% 1196 51/47 61/56% 85/90%

Ecological 860 16% 513 51/50 58/56% 83/92%

Social Science 963 22% 944 50/51 61/61% 89/89%

Most respondents answered …• The subject I study is controversial• The subject that I study is one where

the public sees more risk than there really is• The subject that I study is one where

the public sees too little risk(7-pt. Strongly disagree-Strongly agree)

7 point Likert, Strongly disagree to Strongly agree

General

Chemistry

Biochemist

ry

Microbiology

Geological

Geophysica

l

Ecologica

l1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

The subject I study is controversial…

General

Chemistry

Biochemist

ry

Microbiology

Geological

Geophysica

l

Ecologica

l1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

General

Chemistry

Biochemist

ry

Microbiology

Geological

Geophysica

l

Ecologica

l1.002.003.004.005.006.007.00

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

What’s key …•Chemists and microbiologists

worry public seeing too much risk•Earth scientists think public see

too little risk, more controversy•Variations across societies•Average r = .24 (range = .20 to .28)

Strategic Communication as Planned Behavior (SCaPB?)

Attitude

Injunctive and Subjective Norms

Internal and External Efficacy Beliefs

Cont

ext

(Dem

ogra

phic

s, e

tc.)

Intention/willingness to use strategic communication

behavior

Use of strategic communication

behavior

What constitutes ‘strategic communication behavior’?• Choice of communication channels

Choice of communication tacticsChoice of an objective(knowledge, excitement, trust, norms, efficacy etc.)

… in order to achieve a desired goal

Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?

Do risk views shape engagement channel use/willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would

make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)

M = 2.20 to 3.05, SD = 1.37 to 1.58

M = 1.60 to 2.29, SD = .85 to 1.28

M = 2.04 to 2.73, SD = 1.67 to 2.07

(Differences between societies significant)1 2 3 4 5 6 7

(Controlling for society and age)

Do risk views shape engagement channel use? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would

make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)

F2F: Past Media: Past

Online: Past

B SE B SE B SE

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

..01 .02 -0.01 .01 0.03 .02

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

.00 .02 -.01 .01 .03 .02

The subject I study is controversial .14 .01 .15 .01 .16 .02

Adjusted R2 .06 .10 .06N 4,535 4,508 4,483

Notes: Bold significantly different from 0.00, controlling for age, gender and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.

What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?

Do risk views shape engagement channel use/willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would

make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet) M = 5.38 to 6.10, SD = 1.23 to 1.62

M = 4.84 to 5.58, SD = 1.51 to 1.83M = 2.04 to 2.73, SD = 1.67 to 2.07

(Differences between societies significant)

(Controlling for society and age)

Do risk views shape engagement channel use willingness? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?• More disagreement/controversy would

make scientists less likely to engage?(Note: Not testing the mechanism, yet)

F2F: Willingnes

s

Media: Willingnes

s

Online: Willingnes

sB SE B SE B SE

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

-.02 .01 -.03 .02 -.04 .02

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

.00 .01 -.00 .01 .05 .02

The subject I study is controversial .10 .01 .12 .01 .08 .02

Adjusted R2 .06 .04 .06N 4,514 4,508 4,483Notes: Controlling for age, gender and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.

What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy would

lead scientists to want to engage more?

Small-ish relationships ...

Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?

Do risk views shape engagement goals? What would we expect?• More disagreement/controversy

would to support for policy and behavior change goals

• (And maybe less relative focus on some other goals?)

Piped Text

Mavg = 5.46 to 5.74, SD = 1.23 to 1.37Mavg = 4.92 to 5.96, SD = 1.31 to 1.58Mavg = 6.12 to 6.19, SD = 1.05 to 1.14Mavg = 4.91 to 5.17, SD = 1.35 to 1.53 Mavg = 5.04 to 5.48, SD = 1.25 to 1.47 Mavg = 6.08 to 6.43, SD = .97 to 1.23

(Differences between societies, modes often significant)

Do risk views shape engagement goals? What would we expect/hope?• More disagreement/controversy

would to support for policy and behavior change goals

• (And maybe less relative focus on some other goals?)

Goal: Policy

Change

Goal: Personal Decisions

Goal: Ensure

FundingPolicy - Careers

B SE B SE B SE B SE

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

-.01 .01 .04 .01 .03 .02 -.03 .02

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

.00 .01 .04 .01 .00 .01 -.02 .02

The subject I study is controversial .03 .01 .02 .01 -.08 .01 .04 .02

Adjusted R2 .02 .01 .05 .01N 4,522 4,520 4,506 4,504

Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.

Pretty tiny relationships ...

Strategic Science/RiskCommunication?

Do risk views shape engagement objectives? What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy

would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)

Piped Text

Mavg = 5.25 to 5.56, SD = 1.13 to 1.26

Mavg = 4.94 to 5.33, SD = 1.25 to 1.33

Mavg = 5.99 to 6.07, SD = .87 to 1.02

Mavg = 5.56 to 6.04, SD = 1.22 to 1.39

Mavg = 5.46 to 5.79, SD = 1.14 to 1.21

Mavg = 4.78 to 5.18, SD = 1.19 to 1.36

Mavg = 5.63 to 5.96, SD = 1.04 to 1.22

Mavg = 4.51 to 4.98, SD = 1.25 to 1.37

Mavg = 5.02 to 5.35, SD = 1.29 to 1.42

(Differences between societies, modes often significant)

Do risk views shape engagement goals? Objective:

Inform/ Aware

Objective:Interest/

Excite

Objective: Defend Science

B SE B SE B SE

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

-.01 .01 .01 .01 .04 .01

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

.01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01

The subject I study is controversial .02 .01 -.05 .01 .00 .01

Adjusted R2 .01 .02 .01N 4,522 4,520 4,516Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.

What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy

would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)

Do risk views shape engagement goals?

Objective: Hear

Objective: Show caring

Objective: Show

expertise

Objective: Show

(re)frameB SE B SE B SE B SE

The subject that I study is one where the public sees more risk than there really is

.03 .01 .02 .01 .03 .01 .02 .01

The subject that I study is one where the public sees too little risk

.03 .01 .04 .01 .04 .01 .06 .01

The subject I study is controversial -.01 .01 -.02 .01 .00 .01 .03 .01

Adjusted R2 .01 .01 .01 .01N 4,516 4,508 4,512 4,494Notes: Controlling for age, gender, condition, and society. Including interactions between society and measures provide limited additional explanatory value.

What would we hope?• More disagreement/controversy

would lead to great focus on strategic outcomes (e.g., listening, warmth, competence, framing)

Tiny relationships and no clear differences between objectives ...

What did we learn?1. Scientists who see their area as controversial

engage more, and are more willing to engage2. Some, limited evidence that …• Policy goals associated

with perceived controversy• Personal goals associated with

perception that public sees too little risk3. Little meaningful evidence that scientists

choose objectives based on perceived risk profile of their field

Is this our failure?