发布求助
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献

Public Understanding of Science最新文献

筛选
英文 中文
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 : 2025-09-23 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251374514
Lucilla Losi
{"title":"Socio-economic status and authority deference: Understanding public (dis)engagement with science in Europe.","authors":"Lucilla Losi","doi":"10.1177/09636625251374514","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251374514","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is repeatedly observed that public engagement with science is more common among members of the public with a more privileged socio-economic profile; however little evidence on the mechanisms of this relationship exists. This article proposes one such mechanism in deference towards authority. Through Structural Equation Model on Eurobarometer 2021 data, I investigate if favoring expert guidance over public participation in decision-making on science-related issues mediates the relationship between people's socio-economic status and engagement with science. Results show that higher socio-economic status is associated with greater engagement but also with favor toward experts' deliberation. Preferring experts over public involvement in decision-making is also associated with more informative engagement and less general engagement. Nevertheless, this mediating role is rather weak. Moreover, the study examines how other perceptions of science relate to socio-economic status and engagement, emphasizing the broader social and structural factors that shape opportunities for participation.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251374514"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145132203","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
Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims. 政治意识形态驱动对专家及其主张的看法。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-09-19 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251372081
Rodrigo Reyes Cordova
{"title":"Political ideology-driven perceptions of experts and their claims.","authors":"Rodrigo Reyes Cordova","doi":"10.1177/09636625251372081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251372081","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>US conservatives are often seen as distrusting scientists, and liberals as more trusting. This article examines how alignment between an expert's field and individual political ideology affects claims perceptions. US adults (<i>N</i> = 1054) participated in a pre-registered (https://osf.io/9wnm2) online experiment, indicating their trust in five experts and evaluating the accuracy of four claims. Claims were attributed to experts from impact fields (focused on the consequences of industry and policy), production fields (industry-focused), scientists in general, or no source. Results show that liberals trust all experts more than conservatives and generally perceive claims as more accurate. However, the trust gap between liberals and conservatives is smaller for production experts. While no difference was found between the perceived accuracy of claims attributed to production versus impact experts, expert attribution increased some claims' perceived accuracy. These findings reveal some political-ideology preferences and that attributing a claim to an expert can improve its perception.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251372081"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145087865","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
First-in-human gene therapy clinical trials in the media: Exploring patient narratives. 媒体中的首次人类基因治疗临床试验：探索患者叙述。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-09-12 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251359544
Rachele E Willard, Marilyn S Baffoe-Bonnie, Hasmin C Ramirez, Vence L Bonham
{"title":"First-in-human gene therapy clinical trials in the media: Exploring patient narratives.","authors":"Rachele E Willard, Marilyn S Baffoe-Bonnie, Hasmin C Ramirez, Vence L Bonham","doi":"10.1177/09636625251359544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251359544","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Promising results reported in genetic therapy clinical trials and recent US Food and Drug Administration approvals have attracted media attention. This critical content analysis examines themes and narrative framings present in feature articles published in US news media sources following patients involved in first-in-human clinical trials of genetic therapies. Articles were collected through focused searches across US news websites and LexisNexis databases in the period from 01 January 2017 to 06 April 2022. Forty-three articles met inclusion criteria (n = 13 from database searches, n = 30 from external searches). Articles were diverse across genetic conditions, news sources, and media types. Three dominant themes emerged: (1) Impacts of Living with Genetic Condition, (2) Consequences of Receiving Gene Therapy Treatment, and (3) Risks of Gene Therapy. Narrative frames included hope and caution. Results are discussed in relation to how the value of patient narratives and content may be situated alongside the interests of different actors.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251359544"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145042059","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
Female expertise in public discourses: Visibility of female compared to male scientific experts in German media coverage of eight science-related issues. 公共话语中的女性专业知识：在德国媒体对八个科学相关问题的报道中，女性与男性科学专家的可见度比较。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-09-07 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251363937
Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann, Nikolai Promies, Markus Lehmkuhl
{"title":"Female expertise in public discourses: Visibility of female compared to male scientific experts in German media coverage of eight science-related issues.","authors":"Melanie Leidecker-Sandmann, Nikolai Promies, Markus Lehmkuhl","doi":"10.1177/09636625251363937","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251363937","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A fair (public) representation of women is one of the most discussed questions of our time. The way in which media coverage (re)produces genders may affect individual and collective thinking and the perceptions of women in society. We analyse the representation of female scientists in German news media coverage of eight science-related risk issues and compare male and female experts regarding their relative scientific reputation, the number of references and the content of their statements. Our findings show that female scientific experts are less visible in German media coverage than their male colleagues and that they are underrepresented compared to the respective proportions in the relevant research areas. At the same time, our data relativize the extent of the gender visibility gap - after controlling for hierarchical position and scientific reputation, the differences become rather small. We find no evidence of discrimination against female scientific experts through journalistic selection routines.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251363937"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145008546","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
Quasi-universal acceptance of basic science in the United States. 美国对基础科学的近乎普遍接受。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-09-01 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251364407
Jan Pfänder, Lou Kerzreho, Hugo Mercier
{"title":"Quasi-universal acceptance of basic science in the United States.","authors":"Jan Pfänder, Lou Kerzreho, Hugo Mercier","doi":"10.1177/09636625251364407","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251364407","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Substantial minorities of the population report a low degree of trust in science, or endorse conspiracy theories that violate basic scientific knowledge. This might indicate a wholesale rejection of science. In four studies, we asked 782 US participants questions about trust in science, conspiracy beliefs, and basic science (e.g. the relative size of electrons and atoms). Participants were provided with the scientifically consensual answer to the basic science questions, and asked whether they accept it. Acceptance of the scientific consensus was very high in the sample as a whole (95.1%), but also in every sub-sample (e.g. no trust in science: 87.3%; complete endorsement of flat Earth theory: 87.2%). This quasi-universal acceptance of basic science suggests that people are motivated to reject specific scientific beliefs, and not science as a whole. This could be leveraged in science communication.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251364407"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144974399","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
Social empathy in public deliberation. 公共审议中的社会同理心。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-08-23 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251350573
Lauren M Lambert
{"title":"Social empathy in public deliberation.","authors":"Lauren M Lambert","doi":"10.1177/09636625251350573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251350573","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scholars have increasingly turned to empathy to increase the effectiveness of participatory deliberations among individuals with diverse interests and values. However, because empathy is traditionally focused on in-group relations, deliberations in increasingly polarized contexts would benefit from ways to bridge across social groups. To address this, we apply the construct of <i>social</i> empathy. Our study explores social empathy through participatory technology assessment forums and asks: how do we incorporate, measure, and understand social empathy in public deliberations on human genome editing technology? The analysis reveals that by considering social empathy, participatory deliberation forum designers can use \"persona\" character cards and other forum infrastructure to increase the effectiveness of deliberation across social groups among individuals with diverse interests and values. For future deliberations seeking to cultivate social learning, social empathy-when designed for, integrated in, and measured through deliberations-presents an important mechanism for attention.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251350573"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144974421","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
Natural history museum visitors' use of key concepts and misconceptions in written explanations of evolutionary scenarios. 自然历史博物馆的参观者在书面解释进化情景时使用的关键概念和误解。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-08-03 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251355890
Alexandra Moormann, Anna Beniermann, Daniela Fiedler
{"title":"Natural history museum visitors' use of key concepts and misconceptions in written explanations of evolutionary scenarios.","authors":"Alexandra Moormann, Anna Beniermann, Daniela Fiedler","doi":"10.1177/09636625251355890","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251355890","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Global challenges like biodiversity loss cannot be understood without essential knowledge about evolution. However, evolution is one of the most misunderstood concepts among the general public. Informal learning environments like natural history museums offer great potential for learning about evolution by showing the latest scientific findings in their exhibitions. But to date, there is a lack of evidence about museum visitors' understanding of evolution. Therefore, this study aims to identify which evolutionary key concepts and misconceptions are applied by visitors when asked to explain evolutionary scenarios. Using an online survey, visitors (<i>n</i> = 122) were asked to answer two open-response ACORNS items. Overall, respondents tended to use relatively few key concepts in their responses. Although museum visitors are considered a highly educated group, our surveyed visitors seem to have a poor understanding of evolution. The key concepts and misconceptions identified might help develop future exhibitions and educational programs/activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251355890"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144776638","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
Should we express gratitude in human-AI interaction: The online public's moral stance toward artificial intelligence assistants in China. 我们是否应该在人机交互中表达感激之情：中国网络公众对人工智能助手的道德立场。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-14 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251314337
Yuqi Zhu, Jianxun Chu
{"title":"Should we express gratitude in human-AI interaction: The online public's moral stance toward artificial intelligence assistants in China.","authors":"Yuqi Zhu, Jianxun Chu","doi":"10.1177/09636625251314337","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251314337","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The ethical dimensions of human-AI (artificial intelligence) interaction demand attention. As artificial intelligence assistants become more anthropomorphized, will the public interact with AI as humans morally? This study applied content analysis to data from an online question-and-answer platform in China (<i>N</i> = 287) to explore the public's judgments of gratitude toward artificial intelligence assistants. The findings revealed the majority supports expressing gratitude, while a significant minority disagrees, indicating diverse ethical judgments. By further analyzing people's reasoning, this study found that supporters attribute gratitude to moral autonomy driven by virtue ethics, moral responsibility for responsible AI, and the perceived source identity of anthropomorphized AI as human, aligning with the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm. In contrast, opponents doubt AI's moral agency, highlighting the perceived source of AI as machines, and they judge that treating it with human manners is useless and potentially dangerous. These insights enhance the understanding of the public's view of ethical considerations regarding AI assistants, contribute to gratitude research in the context of human-AI interaction, extend the moral dimension of the Computers-are-Social-Actors paradigm, and emphasize the importance of moral and responsible AI use. Suggestions for future research based on the exploratory findings are also discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"717-733"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143415922","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
Narratives of hope and concern? Examining the impact of climate scientists' communication on credibility and engagement. 希望和关注的叙述？研究气候科学家的沟通对可信度和参与度的影响。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-03 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251314159
Christel W van Eck, Toni G L A van der Meer
{"title":"Narratives of hope and concern? Examining the impact of climate scientists' communication on credibility and engagement.","authors":"Christel W van Eck, Toni G L A van der Meer","doi":"10.1177/09636625251314159","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251314159","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Increasingly, more scientists sound the alarm about climate change, sparking debates over the effects of new science communication strategies on scientific credibility. We investigate what happens when climate scientists deviate from science communication that is principally factual and neutral. In an experiment (US sample, <i>N</i> <i>=</i> 882), we investigated if affective expressions and personal stories impact scientists' credibility and public climate engagement. The results suggest that when climate scientists incorporate affect or personal anecdotes into their messaging, it does not significantly diminish their credibility. Nevertheless, message consistency is essential; only by aligning the narrative with expressed affect can scientific credibility and climate engagement be increased.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"734-751"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274565/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143123599","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
Endorsement of scientific norms among non-scientists: The role of science news consumption, political ideology, and science field. 非科学家对科学规范的认可：科学新闻消费、政治意识形态和科学领域的作用。
IF 3.3 2区 文学
Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2025-08-01 Epub Date: 2025-02-28 DOI: 10.1177/09636625251315882
Markus Schug, Helena Bilandzic, Susanne Kinnebrock
{"title":"Endorsement of scientific norms among non-scientists: The role of science news consumption, political ideology, and science field.","authors":"Markus Schug, Helena Bilandzic, Susanne Kinnebrock","doi":"10.1177/09636625251315882","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09636625251315882","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Public discussions of controversial science fields like COVID-19 or climate science increasingly address inner-scientific structures and the norms guiding the scientific system-aspects that are normally discussed within the scientific community. However, not much is known about the endorsement of scientific norms by non-scientists and how those endorsements differ between controversial und uncontroversial science fields. We conducted a cross-sectional national survey in Germany (<i>N</i> = 1007) to capture the public endorsement of scientific norms and explored the role of the science field, political ideology, and science news consumption. Results suggest that the endorsement of scientific norms is significantly higher in controversial fields than in less controversial fields. More left-leaning political ideology is connected to higher levels of norm endorsement; science news consumption is partly associated with lower scientific norm endorsement. We discuss our findings regarding their implications for the public's image and understanding of controversial science fields.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"752-769"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3,"publicationDate":"2025-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12274562/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143531954","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
首页 上一页 下一页 尾页
0
×
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
请完成安全验证×
相关产品
×
本文献相关产品
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号：604180095
Book学术官方微信