Public Understanding of Science最新文献_第2页

Trust undone: How COVID-19 coverage shaped scientists' trust in journalism and their willingness to engage with the media. 信任被摧毁：COVID-19报道如何塑造了科学家对新闻业的信任以及他们与媒体接触的意愿。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-05-01 Epub Date: 2026-02-12 DOI: 10.1177/09636625261416830

Frank Marcinkowski, Hella de Haas, Sarah Kohler

{"title":"Trust undone: How COVID-19 coverage shaped scientists' trust in journalism and their willingness to engage with the media.","authors":"Frank Marcinkowski, Hella de Haas, Sarah Kohler","doi":"10.1177/09636625261416830","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625261416830","url":null,"abstract":"This study explores how scientists' experiences during the pandemic influenced their trust in journalism and their willingness to engage with the media. The study employed a survey approach, collecting data from 4089 scientists affiliated with German universities and research institutions. Trust in journalism was measured across five dimensions: appropriate topic selection, accurate representation, proper fact selection, fair assessment, and desirable impact. Structural equation modeling was used to analyze the relationships between dissatisfaction with pandemic-era media coverage, trust in journalism, and scientists' willingness to engage in science communication. Results show that scientists' trust in news media is generally limited and varies across media types. The COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated distrust, particularly in media outlets expected to maintain high standards, such as national newspapers and public broadcasters. Trust in journalism proved central in mediating dissatisfaction and engagement, highlighting that distrust may reduce scientists' media involvement and, in turn, weaken public trust in science.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"490-507"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13096614/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146167359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Generics in science communication: Misaligned interpretations across laypeople, scientists, and large language models. 科学传播中的泛型：外行人、科学家和大型语言模型之间的不一致解释。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-20 DOI: 10.1177/09636625261425891

Uwe Peters, Andrea Bertazzoli, Jasmine M DeJesus, Gisela J van der Velden, Benjamin Chin-Yee

{"title":"Generics in science communication: Misaligned interpretations across laypeople, scientists, and large language models.","authors":"Uwe Peters, Andrea Bertazzoli, Jasmine M DeJesus, Gisela J van der Velden, Benjamin Chin-Yee","doi":"10.1177/09636625261425891","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625261425891","url":null,"abstract":"Scientists often use generics, that is, unquantified statements about whole categories of people or phenomena, when communicating research findings (e.g. \"statins reduce cardiovascular events\"). Large language models, such as ChatGPT, frequently adopt the same style when summarizing scientific texts. However, generics can prompt overgeneralizations, especially when they are interpreted differently across audiences. In a study comparing laypeople, scientists, and two leading large language models (ChatGPT-5 and DeepSeek), we found systematic differences in interpretation of generics. Compared with most scientists, laypeople judged scientific generics as more generalizable and credible, while large language models rated them even higher. These mismatches highlight significant risks for science communication. Scientists may use generics and incorrectly assume laypeople share their interpretation, while large language models may systematically overgeneralize scientific findings when summarizing research. Our findings underscore the need for greater attention to language choices in both human and large language model-mediated science communication.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625261425891"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147724381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Barriers to science communication about research involving animal experimentation: A systematic literature review. 涉及动物实验研究的科学交流障碍：系统文献综述。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-05 DOI: 10.1177/09636625261424852

Sebastian Löser, Emma Weitkamp, Lena M Schiefelbein, Claudia N Haertel, Susanne Bögeholz

{"title":"Barriers to science communication about research involving animal experimentation: A systematic literature review.","authors":"Sebastian Löser, Emma Weitkamp, Lena M Schiefelbein, Claudia N Haertel, Susanne Bögeholz","doi":"10.1177/09636625261424852","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625261424852","url":null,"abstract":"Research involving animal experimentation is a contentious issue at the intersection of science and society, making science communication about it especially challenging. Yet, we lack a systematic account of the barriers researchers and communicators face in this context. Our systematic review used a peer-reviewed search strategy and screening by independent reviewers. The resulting 65 documents (e.g. research articles, editorials, comments) underwent full-text qualitative content analysis. Seven barrier themes emerged from the dataset, most prominently: The Research Is Not Well Suited for Science Communication, The Public Is Difficult, and The Discourse Environment Is Complicated and Dysfunctional (occurred in 86%, 85% and 83% of the 65 documents). Each theme contains multiple barrier categories with varying prevalence across the analysed documents. We elaborate on the most prevalent categories and present examples. This offers researchers and communicators an overview of what they might face so they can prepare accordingly, ultimately strengthening public debate.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625261424852"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147624274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Ethics, generative AI and science communication. 伦理、生成式人工智能和科学传播。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-01 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251393621

Hannah R Feldman, Fabien Medvecky, Michelle Riedlinger

{"title":"Ethics, generative AI and science communication.","authors":"Hannah R Feldman, Fabien Medvecky, Michelle Riedlinger","doi":"10.1177/09636625251393621","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251393621","url":null,"abstract":"In this essay, we argue that the applications of generative-AI technologies to science communication need careful consideration to ensure such uses are desirable, and socially and ethically acceptable. In early applications of GenAI in science communication, especially in public media, there has been swift and overwhelmingly negative response to news about its use. Drawing on existing literature about generative-AI in adjacent fields to science communication, and on the scholarship on the ethics of science communication, this article maps out the key ethical issues that the use of generative-AI technologies raise for science communication. Specifically, acknowledging that generative-AI is more than an output-producing technology but is a constellation of governance, infrastructure, data, human and computing operating systems, we argue that three dimensions of ethical concerns need to be explored: the communication outputs of generative AI; the social and environmental impacts of using generative AI technologies in science communication and the narratives we tell about AI technology.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"388-398"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999996/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145649863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Trust, experience, and innovation: Key factors shaping American attitudes about AI. 信任、经验和创新：影响美国人对人工智能态度的关键因素。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-23 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251372510

Risa Palm, Justin T Kingsland, Toby Bolsen

引用次数: 0

Shedding light on public perceptions of scientists who engage in wrongness admission amidst a failed replication. 揭示了公众对在失败的复制中承认错误的科学家的看法。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-16 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251372820

Nicholas D Evans, Adam K Fetterman

{"title":"Shedding light on public perceptions of scientists who engage in wrongness admission amidst a failed replication.","authors":"Nicholas D Evans, Adam K Fetterman","doi":"10.1177/09636625251372820","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251372820","url":null,"abstract":"Admitting that one's research findings are wrong involves admitting a potential instance of incompetence, which can keep scientists from engaging in wrongness admission. However, wrongness admission can yield favorable perceptions. In five experiments (N = 2420), we tested whether wrongness admission yields higher perceived trustworthiness in the scientist and trust in science and discipline-specific research as well as public funding support for the scientist, science, and discipline-specific research. Scientists engaging in wrongness admission (vs refuse or do not comment) were perceived as more trustworthy and received more support for federal funding for their own research. Moreover, wrongness admission yielded similar levels of science and discipline-specific public funding support. Wrongness admission not only facilitated higher scientist trustworthiness, but trustworthiness was, in turn, associated with greater trust in science and psychology, as well as scientist and psychology public funding support. This work highlights potential benefits of scientist wrongness admission amidst failed replications.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"276-294"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13000001/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145769436","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Socio-economic status and authority deference: Understanding public (dis)engagement with science in Europe. 社会经济地位和权威服从：了解欧洲公众（不）参与科学。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-09-23 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251374514

Lucilla Losi

引用次数: 0

The leap of faith in science hypothesis: The link between secular belief and confidence in scientific consensus is better explained by faith in science than by knowledge. 科学信仰的飞跃假设：世俗信仰和对科学共识的信心之间的联系，用对科学的信仰比用知识更好地解释。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-12-08 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251396368

Joevarian Hudiyana, Agnes Patricia, Nadya Hanaveriesa, Azriel Lilo Timothy Siregar, Idhamsyah Eka Putra

引用次数: 0

Trust in scientists and doctors: The roles of faith, politics, education and gender. 对科学家和医生的信任：信仰、政治、教育和性别的作用。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-16 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251386562

Steven David Pickering, Martin Ejnar Hansen, Han Dorussen, Jason Reifler, Thomas J Scotto, Yosuke Sunahara, Dorothy Yen

{"title":"Trust in scientists and doctors: The roles of faith, politics, education and gender.","authors":"Steven David Pickering, Martin Ejnar Hansen, Han Dorussen, Jason Reifler, Thomas J Scotto, Yosuke Sunahara, Dorothy Yen","doi":"10.1177/09636625251386562","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251386562","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines trust in science in England, focusing on variation across demographic and ideological groups. Using survey data from 11,173 respondents, we compare trust in two domains, medical doctors and scientists, to explore whether predictors operate similarly across these professional groups. We find higher education is associated with greater trust, while right-wing political orientation predicts lower trust. Religious affiliation also matters, with some faith groups reporting lower trust relative to the non-religious baseline. Gender differences emerge as well, particularly in trust in medical doctors. Respondents selecting 'Prefer not to say' on the religion item report significantly lower trust in both doctors and scientists, consistent with a broader privacy-motivated disclosure style. Our results highlight the importance of considering not just overall levels of trust in science, but variation across education, ideology, religion and gender, and they suggest that trust in doctors and trust in scientists, while related, are not interchangeable.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"352-366"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999988/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145534883","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

'A fiction author can do anything, we're bound by the facts': The risks and opportunities of taking advantage of cognitive biases in storytelling for science communication. “小说作者可以做任何事，我们受事实约束”：在科学传播中利用认知偏见讲故事的风险和机遇。

IF 3.3 2区文学

Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2026-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-22 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251387445

Hannah Little, Juliet Dunstone

{"title":"'A fiction author can do anything, we're bound by the facts': The risks and opportunities of taking advantage of cognitive biases in storytelling for science communication.","authors":"Hannah Little, Juliet Dunstone","doi":"10.1177/09636625251387445","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251387445","url":null,"abstract":"Storytelling is a growing topic in science communication research, highlighting the importance of learning from existing storytelling research from other disciplines. Storytelling research in cultural evolution has identified a number of cognitive biases in how we transmit information: stories are remembered and passed on more faithfully when they contain social and survival information, negative information or counterintuitive information. In this article, we review this cultural evolution literature and present findings from a set of interviews with science communication professionals. We asked science communicators about the potential benefits and risks that may come about when using cognitive biases within science communication storytelling. Science communicators reported already using some cognitive biases in their practice. Participants also expressed concerns about some tactics that might contradict objectives of science communication, threaten the integrity of science and science communication and risk the welfare of audiences. We map the benefits and risks reported using a thematic analysis.","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"367-387"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12999997/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145574704","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0