The DOI matches its Crossref record; 97 of the 97 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Assessing what to address in science communication
Open accessAbstract
As members of a democratic society, individuals face complex decisions about whether to support climate change mitigation, vaccinations, genetically modified food, nanotechnology, geoengineering, and so on. To inform people’s decisions and public debate, scientific experts at government agencies, nongovernmental organizations, and other organizations aim to provide understandable and scientifically accurate communication materials. Such communications aim to improve people’s understanding of the decision-relevant issues, and if needed, promote behavior change. Unfortunately, existing communications sometimes fail when scientific experts lack information about what people need to know to make more informed decisions or what wording people use to describe relevant concepts. We provide an introduction for scientific experts about how to use mental models research with intended audience members to inform their communication efforts. Specifically, we describe how to conduct interviews to characterize people’s decision-relevant beliefs or mental models of the topic under consideration, identify gaps and misconceptions in their knowledge, and reveal their preferred wording. We also describe methods for designing follow-up surveys with larger samples to examine the prevalence of beliefs as well as the relationships of beliefs with behaviors. Finally, we discuss how findings from these interviews and surveys can be used to design communications that effectively address gaps and misconceptions in people’s mental models in wording that they understand. We present applications to different scientific domains, showing that this approach leads to communications that improve recipients’ understanding and ability to make informed decisions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063 · Cited by 32,433
How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006) · Field Methods · doi:10.1177/1525822x05279903 · Cited by 20,808
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 3×
“quality: Non-attitude reduction or an invitation to satisfice? Public Opin Q 66(3):”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Content Analysis Guidebook
Neuendorf, K. A. (2017) · doi:10.4135/9781071802878 · Cited by 9,286
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736
(2017) · The SAGE Encyclopedia of Communication Research Methods · doi:10.4135/9781483381411.n168 · Cited by 8,276
(2008) · Cited by 6,727
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000) · Journal of Social Issues · doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00176 · Cited by 5,678
Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,345
Shute, V. J. (2008) · Review of Educational Research · doi:10.3102/0034654307313795 · Cited by 4,631
Cited by
The sciences of science communication
Fischhoff, B. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213273110 · Cited by 362
Communicating scientific uncertainty
Fischhoff, B., & Davis, A. L. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317504111 · Cited by 312
The science of sharing and the sharing of science
Milkman, K. L., & Berger, J. (2014) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1317511111 · Cited by 154
Public understanding of climate change terminology
Bruine de Bruin, W., Rabinovich, L., Weber, K., Babboni, M., Dean, M., & Ignon, L. (2021) · Climatic Change · doi:10.1007/s10584-021-03183-0 · Cited by 62
Digital interventions in mental health: Evidence syntheses and economic modelling
Gega, L., Jankovic, D., Saramago, P., Marshall, D., Dawson, S., Brabyn, S., Nikolaidis, G. F., Melton, H., Churchill, R., & Bojke, L. (2022) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/rcti6942 · Cited by 48
Metadata
- Authors
- Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-08-13
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- supplement_3
- Pages
- 14062-14068
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- OpenAlex
- W1995726594
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 97
- FWCI
- 53.58
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Assessing what to address in science communication. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1073/pnas.1212729110
- The paper
- Bruine de Bruin, W., & Bostrom, A. (2013). Assessing what to address in science communication. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1212729110
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.