Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative


Autoři: Lise Saffran aff001;  Sisi Hu aff002;  Amanda Hinnant aff002;  Laura D. Scherer aff003;  Susan C. Nagel aff004
Působiště autorů: Department of Public Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America aff001;  School of Journalism, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America aff002;  School of Medicine, University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado, United States of America aff003;  Obstetrics, Gynecology and Women’s Health, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, United States of America aff004
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 15(1)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0226711

Souhrn

This study develops a measure of perceived authenticity in science communication and then explores communication strategies to improve the perceived authenticity of a scientific message. The findings are consistent with literature around trust and credibility, but indicate that authenticity—the perception that the scientist is a unique individual with qualities beyond institutional affiliations or a role in the production of the research—may add a potentially important dimension to accepted categories of integrity and benevolence.

Klíčová slova:

Communications – Educational attainment – Emotions – Factor analysis – Reasoning – Research integrity – Scientists – Social communication


Zdroje

1. National Academies of Sciences‚ Engineering‚ and Medicine. Communicating science effectively: A research agenda. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2017.

2. Mayer RC, Davis JH, Schoorman FD. An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust. Acad Manage Rev. 1995;20(3):709–34.

3. Hendriks F, Kienhues D, Bromme R. Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory (METI). PLoS ONE. 2015;10(10):e0139309. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0139309 26474078

4. Anderson AA, Scheufele DA, Brossard D, Corley EA. The Role of Media and Deference to Scientific Authority in Cultivating Trust in Sources of Information about Emerging Technologies. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 2011;24(2):225–37.

5. Becerra M, Lunnan R, Huemer L. Trustworthiness, Risk, and the Transfer of Tacit and Explicit Knowledge Between Alliance Partners. Journal of Management Studies. 2008;45(4):691–713.

6. Fiske ST, Cuddy AJC, Glick P. Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2007;11(2):77–83. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2006.11.005 17188552

7. Schoorman FD, Mayer RC, Davis JH. An Integrative Model Of Organizational Trust: Past, Present, And Future. Acad Manage Rev. 2007;32(2):344–54.

8. Kernis MH, Goldman BM. A Multicomponent Conceptualization of Authenticity: Theory and Research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 38: Academic Press; 2006. p. 283–357.

9. Wood AM, Linley PA, Maltby J, Baliousis M, Joseph S. The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the Authenticity Scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology. 2008;55(3):385–99.

10. Wickham RE. Perceived authenticity in romantic partners. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2013;49(5):878–87.

11. Molleda JC. Authenticity and the construct's dimensions in public relations and communication research. Journal of Communication Management. 2010;14(3):223–36.

12. Morhart F, Malär L, Guèvremont A, Girardin F, Grohmann B. Brand authenticity: An integrative framework and measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Psychology. 2015;25(2):200–18.

13. Fiske ST, Dupree C. Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(Supplement 4):13593.

14. Chryssochoidis G, Strada A, Krystallis A. Public trust in institutions and information sources regarding risk management and communication: towards integrating extant knowledge. Journal of Risk Research. 2009;12(2):137–85.

15. Kunseler E-M, Tuinstra W. Navigating the authority paradox: Practising objectivity in environmental expertise. Environmental Science & Policy. 2017;67:1–7.

16. Shamir B, Eilam-Shamir G. Chapter 3 “What’s Your Story?” A Life-Stories Approach to Authentic Leadership Development. Leadership Now: Reflections on the Legacy of Boas Shamir. Monographs in Leadership and Management. 9: Emerald Publishing Limited; 2018. p. 51–76.

17. Fine GA. Crafting authenticity: The validation of identity in self-taught art. Theory and Society. 2003;32(2):153–80.

18. Rabinovich A, Morton TA, Birney ME. Communicating climate science: The role of perceived communicator’s motives. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2012;32(1):11–8.

19. Choi H, Ko E, Kim EY, Mattila P. The Role of Fashion Brand Authenticity in Product Management: A Holistic Marketing Approach. Journal of Product Innovation Management. 2015;32(2):233–42.

20. Rego A, Sousa F, Marques C, Cunha MPe. Authentic leadership promoting employees' psychological capital and creativity. Journal of Business Research. 2012;65(3):429–37.

21. Cooper CD, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA. Looking forward but learning from our past: Potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. The Leadership Quarterly. 2005;16(3):475–93.

22. Johnson ZD, LaBelle S. An examination of teacher authenticity in the college classroom. Communication Education. 2017;66(4):423–39.

23. Kreber C, Klampfleitner M, McCune V, Bayne S, Knottenbelt M. What Do You Mean By “Authentic”? A Comparative Review of the Literature On Conceptions of Authenticity in Teaching. Adult Education Quarterly. 2007;58(1):22–43.

24. Renn O, Levine D. Credibility and trust in risk communication. In: Kasperson RE, Stallen PJM, editors. Communicating Risks to the Public: International Perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; 1991. p. 175–217.

25. Petraglia J. The Importance of Being Authentic: Persuasion, Narration, and Dialogue in Health Communication and Education. Health Communication. 2009;24(2):176–85. doi: 10.1080/10410230802676771 19280461

26. Kidd DC, Castano E. Reading Literary Fiction Improves Theory of Mind. Science. 2013;342(6156):377. doi: 10.1126/science.1239918 24091705

27. Niederdeppe J, Shapiro MA, Porticella N. Attributions of Responsibility for Obesity: Narrative Communication Reduces Reactive Counterarguing among Liberals. Human Communication Research. 2011;37(3):295–323.

28. Burgess D, van Ryn M, Dovidio J, Saha S. Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(6):882–7. doi: 10.1007/s11606-007-0160-1 17503111

29. Terwel BW, Harinck F, Ellemers N, Daamen DDL. How organizational motives and communications affect public trust in organizations: The case of carbon dioxide capture and storage. Journal of Environmental Psychology. 2009;29(2):290–9.

30. Lupia A. Communicating science in politicized environments. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013;110(Supplement 3):14048.

31. Kahan DM, Jenkins‐Smith H, Braman D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. Journal of Risk Research. 2011;14(2):147–74.

32. Brewer PR, Ley BL. Whose Science Do You Believe? Explaining Trust in Sources of Scientific Information About the Environment. Science Communication. 2012;35(1):115–37.

33. Kunda Z. The case for motivated reasoning. Psychol Bull. 1990;108(3):480–98. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480 2270237

34. McCright AM, Dunlap RE. The Politicization of Climate Change and Polarization in the American Public's Views of Global Warming, 2001–2010. The Sociological Quarterly. 2011;52(2):155–94.

35. Fowler EF, Gollust SE. The Content and Effect of Politicized Health Controversies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 2015;658(1):155–71.

36. Gauchat G. Politicization of Science in the Public Sphere: A Study of Public Trust in the United States, 1974 to 2010. Am Sociol Rev. 2012;77(2):167–87.

37. Nisbet MC, Markowitz E. Science Communication Research: Bridging Theory and Practice. Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science; 2016.

38. de Graaf A, Hoeken H, Sanders J, Beentjes JWJ. Identification as a Mechanism of Narrative Persuasion. Communication Research. 2011;39(6):802–23.

39. Stern BB. Who Talks Advertising? Literary Theory and Narrative "Point of View". Journal of Advertising. 1991;20(3):9–22.

40. Shapiro J. Illness narratives: reliability, authenticity and the empathic witness. Medical Humanities. 2011;37(2):68. doi: 10.1136/jmh.2011.007328 21757469

41. Dahlstrom MF. Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2014;111(Supplement 4):13614–20.

42. Elbow P. What do we mean when we talk about voice in texts. 1994;Voices on voice: Perspectives, definitions, inquiry:1–35.

43. Rains SA. The Nature of Psychological Reactance Revisited: a Meta-Analytic Review. Human Communication Research. 2013;39(1):47–73.

44. Buhrmester M, Kwang T, Gosling SD. Amazon's Mechanical Turk: A New Source of Inexpensive, Yet High-Quality, Data? Perspectives on Psychological Science. 2011;6(1):3–5. doi: 10.1177/1745691610393980 26162106

45. Peer E, Vosgerau J, Acquisti A. Reputation as a sufficient condition for data quality on Amazon Mechanical Turk. Behav Res Methods. 2014;46(4):1023–31. doi: 10.3758/s13428-013-0434-y 24356996

46. Ev Sonderen, Sanderman R Coyne JC. Ineffectiveness of Reverse Wording of Questionnaire Items: Let’s Learn from Cows in the Rain. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e68967. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0068967 23935915

47. Osborne J, Costello A, Kellow J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis. 2008 2019/10/16. In: Best Practices in Quantitative Methods [Internet]. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. Available from: https://methods.sagepub.com/book/best-practices-in-quantitative-methods.

48. Costello AB, Osborne JW. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 2005;10(7):1–9.

49. Harrington D. Confirmatory factor analysis. New York, NY: Oxford university press; 2009.

50. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Arora NK. Varieties of Uncertainty in Health Care: A Conceptual Taxonomy. Med Decis Making. 2011;31(6):828–38. doi: 10.1177/0272989X11393976 22067431

51. Shaffer VA, Focella ES, Hathaway A, Scherer LD, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. On the Usefulness of Narratives: An Interdisciplinary Review and Theoretical Model. Ann Behav Med. 2018;52(5):429–42. doi: 10.1093/abm/kax008 29684135

52. McCright AM, Dentzman K, Charters M, Dietz T. The influence of political ideology on trust in science. Environmental Research Letters. 2013;8(4):044029.

53. National Science Board. Science and technology: Public attitudes and understanding. Alexandria, VA; 2018.

54. Hmielowski JD, Feldman L, Myers TA, Leiserowitz A, Maibach E. An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming. Public Understanding of Science. 2013;23(7):866–83. doi: 10.1177/0963662513480091 23825287

55. Bolsen T, Palm R, Kingsland JT. Counteracting Climate Science Politicization With Effective Frames and Imagery. Science Communication. 2019;41(2):147–71.

56. Kohring M. Misunderstanding trust in science: A critique of the traditional discourse on science communication. Journal of Science Communication. 2016;15(5):C04.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2020 Číslo 1