Difference between revisions of "Resource:8de14a71-1a9b-4520-8a91-8cbd048aa4ce"
From The Embassy of Good Science
(Created page with "{{Resource |Resource Type=Education |Title=Meta-Analysis Map: Relevant Factors Shaping Public Attitudes Of Science Communication - policy brief |Has Related Initiative=Initiat...") |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Resource | {{Resource | ||
|Resource Type=Education | |Resource Type=Education | ||
| − | |Title=Meta-Analysis Map: | + | |Title=Meta-Analysis Map: relevant factors shaping public attitudes of science communication - policy brief |
|Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Cb516d22-2d67-49aa-add3-cf154906a8f3 | |Has Related Initiative=Initiative:Cb516d22-2d67-49aa-add3-cf154906a8f3 | ||
|Is About=The ''Meta-analysis Map'' report reviews and synthesises existing academic research to identify factors that influence how the public perceives and responds to science communication. It maps key determinants shaping attitudes toward scientific information, organising them into four main categories: (1) audience characteristics (e.g., psychological biases, prior knowledge, values), (2) communicator traits (e.g., trust, background, goals), (3) message features (e.g., content credibility, clarity), and (4) communication channels and media environments (e.g., social media effects). The report also examines how misinformation and conspiracy beliefs affect individuals’ interpretations of scientific communication, offering a conceptual foundation for later empirical work in the TRESCA project. It aims to support improved strategies for effective, trustworthy science communication by highlighting psychological and media-related processes that help or hinder public understanding and trust. | |Is About=The ''Meta-analysis Map'' report reviews and synthesises existing academic research to identify factors that influence how the public perceives and responds to science communication. It maps key determinants shaping attitudes toward scientific information, organising them into four main categories: (1) audience characteristics (e.g., psychological biases, prior knowledge, values), (2) communicator traits (e.g., trust, background, goals), (3) message features (e.g., content credibility, clarity), and (4) communication channels and media environments (e.g., social media effects). The report also examines how misinformation and conspiracy beliefs affect individuals’ interpretations of scientific communication, offering a conceptual foundation for later empirical work in the TRESCA project. It aims to support improved strategies for effective, trustworthy science communication by highlighting psychological and media-related processes that help or hinder public understanding and trust. | ||
|Important Because=This meta-analysis is important because it clarifies ''why'' people interpret and trust (or reject) scientific information the way they do. By systematically mapping research on psychological, communicative, and media-related factors, it provides a structured evidence base that helps countries, organisations, and communicators design more effective science communication strategies. Understanding these factors is crucial for confronting misinformation and enhancing public engagement with science especially in areas with high societal impact like health, climate change, and digital innovation. The report also sets the groundwork for subsequent empirical studies and practical tools developed in the wider TRESCA project. Its insights can guide communicators and policymakers in tailoring messages that resonate with audiences and build trust in reliable scientific knowledge. | |Important Because=This meta-analysis is important because it clarifies ''why'' people interpret and trust (or reject) scientific information the way they do. By systematically mapping research on psychological, communicative, and media-related factors, it provides a structured evidence base that helps countries, organisations, and communicators design more effective science communication strategies. Understanding these factors is crucial for confronting misinformation and enhancing public engagement with science especially in areas with high societal impact like health, climate change, and digital innovation. The report also sets the groundwork for subsequent empirical studies and practical tools developed in the wider TRESCA project. Its insights can guide communicators and policymakers in tailoring messages that resonate with audiences and build trust in reliable scientific knowledge. | ||
| − | |Important For=Communication professionals | + | |Important For=Communication professionals; Policy & governance; Public & civil society; Researchers & academics |
}} | }} | ||
{{Link | {{Link | ||
Latest revision as of 12:51, 10 February 2026
ResourcesEducation
Meta-Analysis Map: relevant factors shaping public attitudes of science communication - policy brief
Related Initiative
What is this about?
The Meta-analysis Map report reviews and synthesises existing academic research to identify factors that influence how the public perceives and responds to science communication. It maps key determinants shaping attitudes toward scientific information, organising them into four main categories: (1) audience characteristics (e.g., psychological biases, prior knowledge, values), (2) communicator traits (e.g., trust, background, goals), (3) message features (e.g., content credibility, clarity), and (4) communication channels and media environments (e.g., social media effects). The report also examines how misinformation and conspiracy beliefs affect individuals’ interpretations of scientific communication, offering a conceptual foundation for later empirical work in the TRESCA project. It aims to support improved strategies for effective, trustworthy science communication by highlighting psychological and media-related processes that help or hinder public understanding and trust.
Why is this important?
This meta-analysis is important because it clarifies why people interpret and trust (or reject) scientific information the way they do. By systematically mapping research on psychological, communicative, and media-related factors, it provides a structured evidence base that helps countries, organisations, and communicators design more effective science communication strategies. Understanding these factors is crucial for confronting misinformation and enhancing public engagement with science especially in areas with high societal impact like health, climate change, and digital innovation. The report also sets the groundwork for subsequent empirical studies and practical tools developed in the wider TRESCA project. Its insights can guide communicators and policymakers in tailoring messages that resonate with audiences and build trust in reliable scientific knowledge.
