The DOI matches its Crossref record; 60 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement
Open accessAbstract
Amid calls from scientific leaders for their colleagues to become more effective public communicators, this study examines the objectives that scientists' report drive their public engagement behaviors. We explore how scientists evaluate five specific communication objectives, which include informing the public about science, exciting the public about science, strengthening the public's trust in science, tailoring messages about science, and defending science from misinformation. We use insights from extant research, the theory of planned behavior, and procedural justice theory to identify likely predictors of scientists' views about these communication objectives. Results show that scientists most prioritize communication designed to defend science from misinformation and educate the public about science, and least prioritize communication that seeks to build trust and establish resonance with the public. Regression analyses reveal factors associated with scientists who prioritize each of the five specific communication objectives. Our findings highlight the need for communication trainers to help scientists select specific communication objectives for particular contexts and audiences.
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
The theory of planned behavior
Ajzen, I. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-t · Cited by 90,587
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585 · cited 1×
“Our analyses are based on a sample of members from the world’s largest general scientific society (N = 390) and are guided by extant public engagement research, the theory of planned behavior [10] and procedural justice theory [11],”
MethodInternet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2008) · Cited by 5,345
Voice and equality: civic voluntarism in American politics
(1996) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.33-3597 · Cited by 5,186
(2011) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.48-6243 · Cited by 3,579
Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (2004) · Princeton University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9781400826339 · Cited by 2,657
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Handbook of Organizational Justice
(2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203774847 · Cited by 1,615
Carpini, M. X. D., Cook, F. L., & Jacobs, L. R. (2004) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.7.121003.091630 · Cited by 1,426
Excellence in public relations and communication management
Culbertson, H. M. (1993) · Public Relations Review · doi:10.1016/0363-8111(93)90033-9 · Cited by 1,144
Cited by
Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017) · Environmental Communication · doi:10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736 · Cited by 216
Lenart-Gansiniec, R., Czakon, W., & Meyer, N. (2025) · Review of Managerial Science · doi:10.1007/s11846-024-00797-3 · Cited by 4
Metadata
- Authors
- Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C.
- Venue
- PLOS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2016-02-25
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e0148867
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2285169987
- Cited by
- 326
- References
- 60
- FWCI
- 45.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
- The paper
- Dudo, A., & Besley, J. C. (2016). Scientists’ Prioritization of Communication Objectives for Public Engagement. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0148867
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.
