杨正,冯韵,吴福仲

• 1:苏州大学传媒学院

摘要(Abstract)：

随着短视频时代科学传播内容制作的专业化与精细化，科学家群体与MCN(Multi-Channel Network)机构联盟进行科学传播内容创作已经成为值得关注的趋势。但当公众感知到MCN参与科学传播的进程时，他们对科学传播者与科学传播内容的信任程度是否会发生变化?基于科学传播的“舞台管理”与“信息控制”理论，本研究通过两组线上实验，分别探索了在“科学饮食”和“疫苗接种”两个话题情境下，MCN信息披露对于科学传播中公众信任的影响及权威感知与亲近感知的中介角色。结果一致表明，MCN信息披露显著负向影响受众对科学传播者和传播内容的信任程度。在“科学饮食”的情境中，亲近感知负向中介了这一效应，权威感知的中介效应不显著；在“疫苗接种”的情境中，亲近感知与权威感知的负向中介效应均显著。本研究为不同议题情境下短视频平台的科学传播实践提供了启示。

关键词(KeyWords)： 科学传播;MCN信息披露;舞台管理;信息控制;短视频

Abstract:

Keywords:

基金项目(Foundation): 国家社会科学基金后期资助项目“角色嬗变与重构:数字媒体时代科学传播的主体生态研究”(23FXWB015)的阶段性研究成果

作者(Author): 杨正,冯韵,吴福仲

参考文献(References)：

• 宫贺、徐莹、黄苗红(2022):新冠疫情中科普网红的说服机制与反思：基于精细加工可能性模型的两组实验研究，《国际新闻界》,第44卷第5期，110-133页。
• 何磊静、古一平(2023年6月1日):教授院士纷纷“破圈”,吸引百万粉丝……,《新华每日电讯》,005版。
• 李晓静(2017):社交媒体用户的信息加工与信任判断——基于眼动追踪的实验研究，《新闻与传播研究》,第24卷第10期，49-67、127-128页。
• 刘灿威(2024):医生权威的消解：短视频作为健康科普媒介的效果评价研究，《天府新论》,第2期，130-141页。
• 斯蒂芬·希尔加德纳(2015):《在科学的舞台上：作为公共戏剧的专家咨询》(赵延东译),上海：上海交通大学出版社。(原书Hilgartner,S.[2000].Science on stage:Expert advice as public drama.Stanford:Stanford University Press.)
• 《数据分析与知识发现》编辑部(2024):变革之旅：2024年十大科学传播趋势，《数据分析与知识发现》,第8卷第2期，154页。
• 王大鹏、贾鹤鹏、吴欧、钟琦(2018):网络自媒体时代的科学传播新动能——以“网红”科学家为例，《新闻记者》,第10期，47-56页。
• 杨枭枭、王唯滢(2024):社交机器人参与网络伪科学认知传播的机理研究，《青年记者》,第2期，23-30页。
• 中国科普研究所(2024):《短视频平台共创知识传播新生态》,北京：中国科普研究所。
• 周一杨(2021):科普短视频在科学传播中的应用研究——以抖音号“科普中国”和“回形针”为例，《新闻爱好者》,第7期，88-90页。
• Algan,Y.,Cohen,D.,Davoine,E.,Foucault,M.& Stantcheva,S.(2021).Trust in scientists in times of pandemic:Panel evidence from 12 countries.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,118(40),e2108576118.doi:10.1073/pnas.2108576118.
• Altenmüller,M.S.,Kampschulte,L.,Verbeek,L.& Gollwitzer,M.(2023).Science communication gets personal:Ambivalent effects of self-disclosure in science communication on trust in science.Journal of Experimental Psychology,29(4),793-812.doi:10.1037/xap0000489.
• Anderson,A.A.,Scheufele,D.A.,Brossard,D.& Corley,E.A.(2012).The role of media and deference to scientific authority in cultivating trust in sources of information about emerging technologies.International Journal of Public Opinion Research,24(2),225-237.doi:10.1093/ijpor/edr032.
• Ashwell,D.(2012).Barriers to the public communication of science:Commercial constraints versus public understanding.PRism,9(1),1-11.
• Bansal,H.S.& Voyer,P.A.(2000).Word-of-mouth processes within a services purchase decision context.Journal of Service Research,3(2),166-177.doi:10.1177/109467050032005.
• Bauer,M.W.(2008).Paradigm change for science communication:Commercial science needs a critical public.In Cheng,D.H.,Claessens,M.,Gascoigne,T.,Metcalfe,J.,Schiele,B.& Shi,S.K.(Eds.),Communicating Science in Social Contexts:New Models,New Practices.Dordrecht:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-8598-7.
• Bauer,M.W.& Falade,B.A.(2021).Public understanding of science:Survey research around the world.In Bucchi,M.& Trench,B.(Eds.),Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (3rd ed.).London:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781003039242.
• Brondi,S.,Pellegrini,G.,Guran,P.,Fero,M.& Rubin,A.(2021).Dimensions of trust in different forms of science communication:The role of information sources and channels used to acquire science knowledge.JCOM:Journal of Science Communication,20(3),1-21.doi:org/10.22323/2.20030208.
• Brüggemann,M.,L?rcher,I.& Walter,S.(2020).Post-normal science communication:Exploring the blurring boundaries of science and journalism.Journal of Science Communication,19(3),A02.doi:10.22323/2.19030202.
• Bügel,M.S.,Verhoef,P.C.& Buunk,A.P.(2011).Customer intimacy and commitment to relationships with firms in five different sectors:Preliminary evidence.Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services,18(4),247-258.doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2010.11.005.
• Carr,C.T.& Foreman,A.C.(2016).Identity shift III:Effects of publicness of feedback and relational closeness in computer-mediated communication.Media Psychology,19(2),334-358.doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1049276.
• Chung,J.,Ding,Y.& Kalra,A.(2023).I really know you:How influencers can increase audience engagement by referencing their close social ties.Journal of Consumer Research,50(4),683-703.doi:10.1093/jcr/ucad019.
• C?té,é.,Dorfman,A.,Lacourse,é.,Lina,J.M.,Pelletier-Dumas,M.,Stolle,D.& De La Sablonnière,R.(2023).Blinded by trust in close others:Examining the effect of social closeness on cooperative behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic.Social and Personality Psychology Compass,17(11),e12826.doi:10.1111/spc3.12826.
• Evans,M.S.(2009).Defining the public,defining sociology:Hybrid science—public relations and boundary-work in early American sociology.Public Understanding of Science,18(1),5-22.doi:10.1177/0963662506071283.
• Finkler,W.& Leon,B.(2019).The power of storytelling and video:A visual rhetoric for science communication.Journal of Science Communication,18(5),A02.doi:10.22323/2.18050202.
• Gauchat,G.(2011).The cultural authority of science:Public trust and acceptance of organized science.Public Understanding of Science,20(6),751-770.doi:10.1177/0963662510365246.
• Gieryn,T.F.(1983).Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science:Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists.American Sociological Review,48(6),781-795.doi:10.2307/2095325.
• Gustafson,A.& Rice,R.E.(2020).A review of the effects of uncertainty in public science communication.Public Understanding of Science,29(6),614-633.doi:10.1177/0963662520942122.
• Haklay,M.,D?rler,D.,Heigl,F.,Manzoni,M.,Hecker,S.& Vohland,K.(2021).What is citizen science?The challenges of definition.In Vohland,K.,Land-Zandstra,A.,Ceccaroni,L.,Lemmens,R.,Perelló,J.,Ponti,M.,Samson,R.& Wagenknecht,K.(Eds.),The Science of Citizen Science.Cham:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-3-030-58278-4_2.
• Hilgartner,S.(2012).Staging high-visibility science:Media orientation in genome research.In R?dder,S.,Franzen,M.& Weingart,P.(Eds.),The Sciences' Media Connection-Public Communication and its Repercussions.Dordrecht:Springer.doi:10.1007/978-94-007-2085-5_10.
• Horst,M.(2013).A field of expertise,the organization,or science itself?Scientists' perception of representing research in public communication.Science Communication,35(6),758-779.doi:10.1177/1075547013487513.
• Irwin,A.(2021).Risk,science and public communication:Third-order thinking about scientific culture.In Bucchi,M.& Trench,B.(Eds.),Routledge Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology (3rd ed.).London:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781003039242.
• Jia,H.P.,Wang,D.P.,Miao,W.S.& Zhu,H.J.(2017).Encountered but not engaged:Examining the use of social media for science communication by Chinese scientists.Science Communication,39(5),646-672.doi:10.1177/1075547017735114.
• Jia,H.P.(2021).Science in movements:Knowledge control and social contestation in China's hydropower,GMO and nuclear controversies.London:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781003160212.
• John,S.(2018).Epistemic trust and the ethics of science communication:Against transparency,openness,sincerity and honesty.Social Epistemology,32(2),75-87.doi:10.1080/02691728.2017.1410864.
• Judd,K.& McKinnon,M.(2021).A systematic map of inclusion,equity and diversity in science communication research:Do we practice what we preach?Frontiers in Communication,6,744365.doi:10.3389/FCOMM.2021.744365.
• Kahan,D.M.,Peters,E.,Wittlin,M.,Slovic,P.,Ouellette,L.L.,Braman,D.& Mandel,G.(2012).The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.Nature Climate Change,2(10),732-735.doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
• Kerr,J.R.,Schneider,C.R.,Freeman,A.L.,Marteau,T.& Van Der Linden,S.(2022).Transparent communication of evidence does not undermine public trust in evidence.PNAS Nexus,1(5),pgac280.doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac280.
• Kirchmajer,L.& Patterson,P.(2004).The role of interpersonal communication in the development of client trust and closeness in a SME professional services context.Small Enterprise Research,12(1),45-56.
• Lasser,J.,Ahne,V.,Heiler,G.,Klimek,P.,Metzler,H.,Reisch,T.,Sprenger,M.,Thurner,S.& Sorger,J.(2020).Complexity,transparency and time pressure:Practical insights into science communication in times of crisis.Journal of Science Communication,19(5),N01.doi:10.22323/2.19050801.
• Leiserowitz,A.A.,Maibach,E.W.,Roser-Renouf,C.,Smith,N.& Dawson,E.(2013).Climategate,public opinion,and the loss of trust.American Behavioral Scientist,57(6),818-837.doi:10.1177/0002764212458272.
• Maillé,M.è.,Saint-Charles,J.& Lucotte,M.(2010).The gap between scientists and journalists:The case of mercury science in Québec's press.Public Understanding of Science,19(1),70-79.doi:10.1177/0963662509102690.
• Meyer,P.(1988).Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers:Developing an Index.Journalism Quarterly,65(3),567-574.doi:10.1177/107769908806500301.
• Miller,J.R.,Dieterle,B.,deWinter,J.& Vie,S.(2020).Social media in professional,technical,and scientific communication programs:A heuristic to guide future use.Communication Design Quarterly Review,8(1),19-34.doi:10.1145/3375134.3375136.
• Mitchell,A.S.,Hartig,R.,Basso,M.A.,Jarrett,W.,Kastner,S.& Poirier,C.(2021).International primate neuroscience research regulation,public engagement and transparency opportunities.NeuroImage,229,117700.doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117700.
• Mogull,S.A.(2017).Science vs.science commercialization in neoliberalism (extreme capitalism):Examining the conflicts and ethics of information sharing in opposing social systems.In Yu,H.& Northcut,K.M.(Eds.),Scientific Communication:Practices,Theories,and Pedagogies (pp.64-81).New York:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781315160191.
• Nisbet,M.C.& Scheufele,D.A.(2009).What's next for science communication?Promising directions and lingering distractions.American Journal of Botany,96(10),1767-1778.doi:10.3732/ajb.0900041.
• Oloo,B.,Maredia,K.& Mbabazi,R.(2020).Earning trust and building credibility with a new paradigm for effective scientific risk-benefit communication of biotechnology innovations.African Journal of Biotechnology,19(9),684-693.doi:10.5897/AJB2020.17158.
• Opat,K.,Irlbeck,E.,Cummins,R.G.,Li,N.& Boren-Alpizar,A.E.(2024).Get the story straight:Comparing narrative and logical-scientific communication to capture Gen Z's interest in science podcasts.Journal of Radio & Audio Media,31(1),188-206.doi:10.1080/19376529.2022.2145481.
• Pérez,M.S.& Descals,A.M.(1999).Insights into closeness of relationship as determinant of trust within marketing channels.Journal of Marketing Channels,7(1-2),29-51.doi:org/10.1300/J049v07n01_02.
• Ponzio,N.M.,Alder,J.,Nucci,M.,Dannenfelser,D.,Hilton,H.,Linardopoulos,N.& Lutz,C.(2018).Learning science communication skills using improvisation,video recordings,and practice,practice,practice.Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education,19(1),1010-1128.doi:10.1128/jmbe.v19i1.1433.
• Rungius,C.& Flink,T.(2020).Correction:Romancing science for global solutions:On narratives and interpretative schemas of science diplomacy.Humanities and Social Sciences Communications,7(1),112.doi:10.1057/s41599-020-00610-y.
• Scheufele,D.A.(2014).Science communication as political communication.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America,111(S4),13585-13592.doi:10.1073/pnas.1317516111.
• Sharon,A.J.& Baram-Tsabari,A.(2020).Can science literacy help individuals identify misinformation in everyday life?Science Education,104(5),873-894.doi:10.1002/sce.21581.
• Sng,K.,Au,T.Y.& Pang,A.(2021).Social media influencers as a crisis risk in strategic communication:Impact of indiscretions on professional endorsements.In Borchers,N.S.(Ed.),Social Media Influencers in Strategic Communication.New York:Routledge.doi:10.4324/9781003181286.
• ■.,Zarzeczna,N.,McPhetres,J.,Van Harreveld,F.& Rutjens,B.T.(2024).Psychological distance to science as a predictor of science skepticism across domains.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,50(1),18-37.doi:10.1177/01461672221118184.
• Weingart,P.& Guenther,L.(2016).Science communication and the issue of trust.Journal of Science Communication,15(5),C01.doi:10.22323/2.15050301.
• Weingart,P.,Joubert,M.& Connoway,K.(2024).Public engagement with science—Origins,motives and impact in academic literature and science policy.PLoS One,19(6),e0306474.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0306474.
• Welbourne,D.J.& Grant,W.J.(2016).Science communication on YouTube:Factors that affect channel and video popularity.Public Understanding of Science,25(6),706-718.doi:10.1177/0963662515572068.
• Wilsdon,J.& Willis,R.(2004).See-through science:Why public engagement needs to move upstream.Berlin:Demos.
• Wintterlin,F.,Hendriks,F.,Mede,N.G.,Bromme,R.,Metag,J.& Sch?fer,M.S.(2022).Predicting public trust in science:The role of basic orientations toward science,perceived trustworthiness of scientists,and experiences with science.Frontiers in Communication,6,822757.doi:10.3389/FCOMM.2021.822757.
• Yang,Z.(2021).Deconstruction of the discourse authority of scientists in Chinese online science communication:Investigation of citizen science communicators on Chinese knowledge sharing networks.Public Understanding of Science,30(8),993-1007.doi:10.1177/09636625211005106.
• Yang,Z.(2023).Who should be a science communicator?The struggle for ‘legitimate’ status as science communicators between Chinese scientists and citizens on a Chinese knowledge-sharing platform.Public Understanding of Science,32(3),357-372.doi:10.1177/09636625221118180.
• Yang,Z.& Yang,T.(2024).Differentiated trust strategies and rebellious acceptance:A qualitative comparative analysis of the trust strategies used by scientist communicators and citizen science communicators in Chinese online climate communication.Science Communication,46(3),247-275.doi:10.1177/10755470241230487.
• Yang,Z.,Huang,Y.T.,Yang,T.& Yu,T.R.(2024).How different science communicators use identity strategies to gain public trust:A study on astronomy and climate change issues on a Chinese knowledge sharing platform.Journal of Science Communication,8(1),A01.