The Impact of Communicating Advocacy and Scientific Uncertainty on a Scientist’s Trustworthiness

Inse Janssen, Regina Jucks
{"title":"The Impact of Communicating Advocacy and Scientific Uncertainty on a Scientist’s Trustworthiness","authors":"Inse Janssen, Regina Jucks","doi":"10.24989/fs.v45i1-2.2231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"A central aspect of scientific knowledge is scientific uncertainty. When scientists touch upon political issues, there are two contrary expectations: One is that scientists communicate in a straightforward manner and give a direct, concrete suggestion. The other is that they communicate in a way that carefully considers the pros and cons as well as the current state of (non-) knowledge. This 2x2 experimental study investigated how disclosing scientific uncertainty affects the perceived trustworthiness of a scientist when they express either their motive to inform or their motive to advocate. All participants (N = 503) read an interview with a scientist about the usefulness of further vaccinations against COVID-19. In the interview, uncertainty was explicitly addressed (vs. not). Furthermore, the scientist either disclosed their motive to advocate or their motive to merely inform about research results. Results showed that the scientist was perceived as more trustworthy (i. e., having more expertise, integrity, and benevolence) when they communicated uncertainty than when they did not. However, contrary to our expectations, the effect of the scientist’s expressed motive to advocate (vs. to inform) on trustworthiness did not depend on whether uncertainty was explicitly addressed or not.","PeriodicalId":41240,"journal":{"name":"Fachsprache-Journal of Professional and Scientific Communication","volume":"28 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fachsprache-Journal of Professional and Scientific Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v45i1-2.2231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

A central aspect of scientific knowledge is scientific uncertainty. When scientists touch upon political issues, there are two contrary expectations: One is that scientists communicate in a straightforward manner and give a direct, concrete suggestion. The other is that they communicate in a way that carefully considers the pros and cons as well as the current state of (non-) knowledge. This 2x2 experimental study investigated how disclosing scientific uncertainty affects the perceived trustworthiness of a scientist when they express either their motive to inform or their motive to advocate. All participants (N = 503) read an interview with a scientist about the usefulness of further vaccinations against COVID-19. In the interview, uncertainty was explicitly addressed (vs. not). Furthermore, the scientist either disclosed their motive to advocate or their motive to merely inform about research results. Results showed that the scientist was perceived as more trustworthy (i. e., having more expertise, integrity, and benevolence) when they communicated uncertainty than when they did not. However, contrary to our expectations, the effect of the scientist’s expressed motive to advocate (vs. to inform) on trustworthiness did not depend on whether uncertainty was explicitly addressed or not.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
宣传宣传与科学不确定性对科学家可信度的影响
科学知识的一个中心方面是科学的不确定性。当科学家谈到政治问题时,有两种相反的期望:一种是科学家以直截了当的方式交流,并给出直接、具体的建议。另一个是,他们以一种仔细考虑利弊以及(非)知识的当前状态的方式进行交流。本2x2实验研究调查了当科学家表达告知动机或倡导动机时,披露科学不确定性如何影响其感知的可信度。所有参与者(N = 503)阅读了对一位科学家的采访,内容是关于进一步接种COVID-19疫苗的有效性。在采访中,不确定性被明确地提到了(而不是)。此外,科学家们要么透露了他们倡导的动机,要么透露了他们仅仅告知研究结果的动机。结果表明,当科学家传达不确定性时,他们被认为比不传达不确定性时更值得信赖(即,拥有更多的专业知识、诚信和仁慈)。然而,与我们的预期相反,科学家表达的倡导(相对于告知)动机对可信度的影响并不取决于是否明确解决了不确定性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
期刊最新文献
Funktionen von Unsicherheitsthematisierungen in journalistischen Medien The Impact of Communicating Advocacy and Scientific Uncertainty on a Scientist’s Trustworthiness Corpus Approaches to Analysing Uncertainty and Ignorance in Academic Discourse Konstitution von Nichtwissen und Unsicherheit im Sprachgebrauch – ein programmatischer Systematisierungsversuch Beraten und Prognostizieren. Unsicheres Wissen in der institutionellen vs. der massenmedialen Politikberatung
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1