Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics
Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics
复制标题
DOI：
10.1073/pnas.1317505111
复制
发表时间：
2014-09-16
影响因子：
11.1
通讯作者：
Dupree, Cydney
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Fiske, Susan T.;Dupree, Cydney
专业知识是沟通者可信度的先决条件，需要准确的知识和能力。信任对沟通者的可信度也至关重要。受众将可信度视为诚实的动机。确定谁可以信任遵循系统性原则。人们很快就能判断出别人的明显意图：谁是朋友还是敌人，谁是站在他们一边的，谁是合作者还是竞争者。那些看起来站在他们一边的人被认为是温暖的（友好的，值得信赖的）。然后，人们决定对方是否有能力实施这些意图。对科学家的感知，像其他社会感知一样，涉及推断他们的明显意图（温暖）和能力（能力）。为了说明这一点，我们在网上对成年人进行了关于典型美国工作的调查，根据美国社会对这些工作的看法，在温暖和能力方面，以及相关的情绪。被认为能力强但热情低的职业包括律师、首席执行官、工程师、会计师、科学家和研究人员。被认为是有能力的，但冷可能似乎没有问题，直到一个人回忆说，沟通者的信誉不仅需要地位和专业知识，而且值得信赖（温暖）。其他研究表明，成为令人羡慕的人有风险。谈到科学传播的案例研究，另一个在线成人样本具体描述了公众对气候科学家的态度。虽然不信任度很低，但获得研究资金的明显动机是不可信的。关于气候科学传播者的文献一致认为，公众信任的是公正性，而不是有说服力的议程。总的来说，沟通者的可信度需要解决专业知识和可信度。科学家赢得了观众的尊重，但不一定赢得他们的信任。讨论、教学和分享信息可以赢得信任，以表明科学家值得信赖的意图。
Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another's apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, "envied" professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences' respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists' trustworthy intentions.