Volume 25 • Issue 4 • 2026
Articles
The awe-some paradox: The contrary effects of science media events’ modality on audience’s intention of science information-seeking
Awe-inspiring science events—from astronomical phenomena to scientific breakthroughs—are increasingly consumed through rich audio-visual formats that captivate global audiences. This study explores the psychological mechanisms through which the modality of science media events affects audience’s intention of science information-seeking. An online experiment (N = 356) reveals that experiencing a science event in a rich audio-visual format (vs. a lean textual-imagery format) evokes stronger awe which diminishes the sense of self. This awe-induced perception of small self, in turn, produces a paradoxical outcome: it simultaneously increases thought-provoking reflection, which boosts science information-seeking intention, while decreasing perceived self-efficacy, which suppresses the same intention. These opposing pathways cancel each other out, resulting in no net impact on science information-seeking intention. We discuss implications for science communicators seeking to leverage awe-inspiring media to foster public engagement with science.
A comparative analysis of attitudes toward neuroscience and the application of information on the brain between the public and neuroscientists in Japan
Practice Insights
Archival exhibitions as science communication: lessons from the KHARINA case (Indonesia)
Communicating EU-funded projects: a comparison of communication activities in research projects funded under Horizon 2020 and led by Portuguese and Polish institutions
International Astronomical Union General Assembly 2024: a case study on social media outreach and open access in large-scale scientific conferences
Commentaries
Scholars Under Attack — Navigating the dark side of public engagement and science communication in a politicised (online) environment
Walking the line: balancing benefits of public engagement against the risks of harassment and attack
by Jana Laura Egelhofer, Mr Niels G. Mede, Fabien Medvecky, Dr Thomas James Carruthers, Alice Fleerackers, Miguel Garcia-Guerrero and Mr Bernard OkebeThe erosion of academic freedom in Venezuela: international human rights law, authoritarian practice, and implications for knowledge communication
by Mr Ricardo Villalobos Fontalvo and Dr David Gomez GamboaPatterns of attacks against scholars in Germany: controversial topics as contexts and accelerators of science hostility
by Clemens Dietrich Blümel and Ennio Noél BrandtBeyond incivility: supporting scientists' efforts to correct misinformation online
by Ashley A. Anderson, Nicole Kelp and Sera ChoiFrom visibility to vulnerability: how women scientists face gendered hostility in science communication
by Dr Maider Eizmendi Iraola and Mr Simón Peña-FernandezThe engagement paradox: how negative feedback shapes visibility-oriented science communication on TikTok
by Tinca Lukan and Benedikt FecherLetters
A response to: “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” — A defense of certain types of persuasion
This response to the commentary “Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment” argues that the field would benefit from more attention to the persuasion literature, not less. A primary element of this argument is that a nuanced understanding of persuasion research can provide opportunities to achieve a wide range of goals — including empowering others — in ethical, evidence-based ways.
Publisher's note: this letter refers to Does science communication have its goals wrong? From persuading science skeptics to promoting scientific empowerment