The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The sciences of science communication
Abstract
The May 2012 Sackler Colloquium on “The Science of Science Communication” brought together scientists with research to communicate and scientists whose research could facilitate that communication. The latter include decision scientists who can identify the scientific results that an audience needs to know, from among all of the scientific results that it would be nice to know; behavioral scientists who can design ways to convey those results and then evaluate the success of those attempts; and social scientists who can create the channels needed for trustworthy communications. This overview offers an introduction to these communication sciences and their roles in science-based communication programs.
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
(2000) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803475 · Cited by 2,987
Reyna, V. F., & Farley, F. (2006) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2006.00026.x · Cited by 1,244 · cited 2×
“For example, dual-process theories detail the complex interplay between automatic and deliberate responses to situations, as when people integrate their feelings and knowledge about a risk (9, 10, 13, 35, 38).”
BackgroundBudescu, D. V., Broomell, S., & Por, H.-H. (2009) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02284.x · Cited by 402 · cited 1×
“Similarly, people cannot be expected to understand the uncertainty in a field, unless scientists summarize it for them (6, 11, 16, 27, 57, 58).”
BackgroundHow we see ourselves and how we see others
Pronin, E. (2008) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1154199 · Cited by 353 · cited 1×
“Behavioral research has identified many ways in which people misread others’ minds (28, 29).”
Background(2006) · doi:10.1201/9781482289688 · Cited by 277
Communicating science in social settings
Scheufele, D. A. (2013) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1213275110 · Cited by 231
Research works printed but not linked: 76
- J Burger The Parrot Who Owns Me (Random House, New York, 2002).
- 10.1073/pnas.1212740110 · DOI
- 10.1002/pam.10051 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1212738110 · DOI
- AD Baddeley, Applied cognitive and cognitive applied research. Perspectives on Memory Research, ed LG Nilsson (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 1978).
- 10.1073/pnas.1214646110 · DOI
- J Merz, B Fischhoff, DJ Mazur, PS Fischbeck, Decision-analytic approach to developing standards of disclosure for medical informed consent. J Toxics Liability 15, 191–215 (1993).
- 10.1073/pnas.1212729110 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1212726110 · DOI
- VF Reyna, A new intuitionism: Meaning, memory, and development in Fuzzy-Trace Theory. Judgm Decis Mak 7, 332–339 (2012). · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1213532110 · DOI
- H Raiffa Decision Analysis (Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1968).
- D Kahneman Thinking, Fast and Slow (Farrar Giroux & Strauss, New York, 2011).
- 10.1017/CBO9780511840609 · DOI
- 10.1002/0470033312 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1098/rsta.2011.0068 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0003-066X.47.4.577 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.032 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.46.8.835 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511618031 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9780511814679 · DOI
- 10.1086/269057 · DOI
- 10.1300/J499v08n01_03 · DOI
- 10.1080/17441690600673940 · DOI
- 10.1037/0096-3445.115.4.348 · DOI
- B Fischhoff, Communicating uncertainty: Fulfilling the duty to inform. Issues Sci Technol 28, 63–70 (2012).
- 10.1016/S0010-0277(03)00064-7 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.737 · DOI
- 10.1006/obhd.1996.0020 · DOI
- 10.1080/09638230500048099 · DOI
- Silver RC ed (2011) Special Issue: 9/11: Ten Years Later . Am Psychol 66(6). · DOI
- 10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.001 · DOI
- 10.1037/a0024570 · DOI
- 10.1037/0003-066X.39.12.1372 · DOI
- , ed P Slovic (Earthscan, London Perception of Risk, 2001).
- 10.1057/9780230503946 · DOI
- , eds B Fischhoff, N Brewer, JS Downs (Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide, 2011).
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1995.tb00308.x · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.146 · DOI · Paper page
- , ed P Slovic (Earthscan, London The Feeling of Risk, 2010).
- JH Haidt The Righteous Mind (Pantheon, New York, 2012).
- RC Bartlett Remembering (Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, 1932).
- , eds D Gentner, AL Stevens (Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ Mental Models, 1983).
- P Johnson-Laird Mental Models (Cambridge Univ Press, New York, 1983).
- 10.1016/j.vaccine.2008.01.011 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1037/0278-6133.4.2.115 · DOI
- RW Kates Hazard and Choice Perception in Flood Plain Management (Univ of Chicago Press Chicago) Department of Geography Research Paper No. 78. (1962).
- 10.1038/232414a0 · DOI
- 10.1016/0001-4575(78)90030-1 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1996.tb01464.x · DOI
- 10.3758/BF03204114 · DOI
- 10.1002/sdr.242 · DOI
- 10.1177/0272989X07307270 · DOI
- RE Nisbett, L Ross Human Inference (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1980).
- J Merz, An empirical analysis of the medical informed consent doctrine. Risk 2, 27–76 (1991).
- 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00420.x · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1212742110 · DOI
- NA Christakis, J Fowler Connected (Little, Brown, New York, 2009).
- 10.1073/pnas.1212744110 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/1075547008328797 · DOI
- 10.1111/0272-4332.204047 · DOI
- 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.263 · DOI
- 10.1111/0272-4332.212117 · DOI
- 10.1509/jppm.23.1.14.30396 · DOI
- 10.1021/es0726411 · DOI
- H Kunreuther, E Michel-Kerjan, People get ready: Disaster preparedness. Issues Sci Technol 28, 1–7 (2011).
- 10.1073/pnas.1212745110 · DOI
- 10.3847/AER2011040 · DOI
- ; Canadian Standards Association Risk Management: Guidelines for Decision Makers (Q850) (Canadian Standards Association, Ottawa, Canada, 1997).
- ; National Research Council Understanding Risk (National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1996).
- ; Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management Risk Management (Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., 1998).
- 10.1016/j.marpol.2013.01.019 · DOI
- , eds T Dietz, P Stern (National Academy Press, Washington, DC Public Participation in Environmental Assessment and Decision Making, 2008).
- 10.1126/science.1193205 · DOI
- ; Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future Report to the Secretary of Energy (Department of Energy, Washington, DC, 2012).
- 10.1093/actrade/9780199576203.001.0001 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response
Bavel, J. J. V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P. S., Capraro, V., Cichocka, A., Cikara, M., Crockett, M. J., Crum, A. J., Douglas, K. M., Druckman, J. N., et al. (2020) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z · Cited by 4,964
Recommendations for Good Scientific Practice and the Consumers of VR-Technology
Madary, M., & Metzinger, T. K. (2016) · Frontiers in Robotics and AI · doi:10.3389/frobt.2016.00003 · Cited by 435
On the future of transportation in an era of automated and autonomous vehicles
Hancock, P. A., Nourbakhsh, I., & Stewart, J. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1805770115 · Cited by 312
Considerations for effective science communication
Cooke, S. J., Gallagher, A. J., Sopinka, N. M., Nguyen, V. M., Skubel, R. A., Hammerschlag, N., Boon, S., Young, N., & Danylchuk, A. J. (2017) · FACETS · doi:10.1139/facets-2016-0055 · Cited by 134
Public perception and communication of scientific uncertainty.
Broomell, S. B., & Kane, P. B. (2017) · Journal of Experimental Psychology: General · doi:10.1037/xge0000260 · Cited by 64
Metadata
- Authors
- Fischhoff, B.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-08-13
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- supplement_3
- Pages
- 14033-14039
- ISSN
- 0027-8424
- 1091-6490
- Cited by
- 362
- References
- 6
- Language
- en
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