Online citizen science platforms for nature observations provide valuable data for nature enthusiasts and scientists, but typically emotions and feelings experienced in nature are not shared there. Through focus groups with users of the Dutch citizen science platform Waarneming.nl, we explored how affective nature experiences are shared. We found that citizen scientists exchange affective experiences through face-to-face conversations or social media and hear about others’ experiences through traditional media. Affects are shared to enthuse others to go into nature, respect or connect more with nature, feel recognized and cope with varying affects experienced in response to environmental loss. Yet, these affects are generally not shared on platforms like Waarneming.nl as these media are associated with knowledge production, science and policy, which users perceive to be in opposition to affect. We reflect on this perceived tension between science and affect, suggesting potential ways to overcome this.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are increasingly socialised in professional environments where science communication is seen as part of their academic role. ECRs respond to these expectations differently, shaped in part by social relationships within and beyond academia. This study uses ego-network interviews with 24 highly communicative STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) ECRs in Germany to examine how social relationships influence the importance as well as the integration of science communication in their professional identity. Results show that recognition and support often come from private contacts and the science communication community, while workplace environments are perceived as less supportive and formative. Moreover, different formats and processes of science communication seem to be tied to distinct networks and underlying communication motives.

In recent years, nuclear energy has regained public interest as a method of maintaining reliable power supply during the transition away from fossil fuels and other non-renewable energy sources towards renewable energy. However, lack of public support for maintaining or expanding nuclear power, particularly from Democrats, stands in the way of widespread adoption in the U.S. We use an experimental design (N = 1,624) to investigate consensus messaging, social identity cues, and topic frames as potential message features that alter public support for nuclear power. Results offer practical implications about improving how nuclear power is described to different audiences in public communication about science.

Scientists and experts using social media platforms to engage with the public risk negative public feedback, potentially harming their efforts. This paper addresses how negative user comments affect experts’ trustworthiness and the messages’ credibility depending on whether they frame their message as scientific versus anecdotal using an online study with a 2 (evidence type: scientific vs. anecdotal) x 3 (comments: neutral, negative-factual, negative-emotional) between-subjects design. The results suggest that relying on scientific evidence when engaging in emotionally charged discourses is beneficial. Negative-emotional comments have a significant negative impact on trustworthiness, which is especially pronounced when using anecdotal evidence.

This study examines the relationship between disgust sensitivity and climate change risk perceptions, using both self-reported and psychophysiological measures of disgust sensitivity. We find that disgust sensitivity is connected to climate change risk perception, although results are far weaker with physiological measures than with self-reports. Results consequently suggest that the connection may stem more from cognitive and expressive factors than implicit biological impulses. Given theoretical functions of disgust, these findings offer valuable insights regarding the structure of environmental attitudes and heterogeneity in the effects of science and environmental communication.

This study explores how organizations that conduct scientific research support communication activities, including activities aimed at fostering public engagement. It uses qualitative, thematic analyses of semi-structured interviews to propose an initial partnership categorization based on the degree to which communication support is embedded within or external to the organization, as well as the degree to which engagement resources are pooled across funding sources. It then discusses how different categorizations might be associated with several different metrics of public engagement quality. Findings suggest that partnerships with external groups that have shared goals can enhance engagement efforts in situations where the organization lacks the resources to build internal engagement teams and programs. These findings challenge past work focused on the value of internal communication infrastructure. However, the potential benefits and limitations of different approaches to within-organization versus external-to-organization communication support need further research.

Starting from the premise that public science communication practices have changed in recent years, this paper asks where these changes are heading and what factors can explain them. We conducted a survey among researchers at CONICET[CONICET (Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas) is the National Council of Science and Technology.] in Argentina, asking them about these changing practices. Considering the major technological changes that have taken place in recent years, we find that science popularisation activities have intensified, but with significant differences in the means used to communicate informed by the career stage of the researcher. We also consider the different motivations of scientists to engage in science communication activities.

Two studies, using real-time response measurement and interviews, explore how German recipients assess the trustworthiness of a voice-based communicative AI conveying science-related information with empathic and humorous expressions. In both a laboratory and an online study, humor was associated with short-term declines in trustworthiness, reflecting cultural expectations and appreciation of objectivity and neutrality. In contrast, empathic expressions are rated more trustworthy, but evoke less conspicuous effects. Cluster analysis identified four distinct patterns of evaluation, with two groups largely unaffected by affective cues and two skeptical of humor, underscoring the importance of personalization and adaptation in designing trustworthy communicative AI for science communication.