The different audiences of science communication: A segmentation analysis of the Swiss population’s perceptions of science and their information and media use patterns

Few studies have assessed whether populations can be divided into segments with different perceptions of science. We provide such an analysis and assess whether these segments exhibit specific patterns of media and information use. Based on representative survey data from Switzerland, we use latent class analysis to reconstruct four segments: the “Sciencephiles,” with strong interest for science, extensive knowledge, and a pronounced belief in its potential, who use a variety of sources intensively; the “Critically Interested,” also with strong interest and support for science but with less trust in it, who use similar sources but are more cautious toward them; the “Passive Supporters” with moderate levels of interest, trust, and knowledge and tempered perceptions of science, who use fewer sources; and the “Disengaged,” who are not interested in science, do not know much about it, harbor critical views toward it, and encounter it—if at all—mostly through television.

[1]  Yoram Wind,et al.  Issues and Advances in Segmentation Research , 1978 .

[2]  M. Slater Theory and method in health audience segmentation. , 1996, Journal of health communication.

[3]  Gerald M. Kosicki,et al.  Cognitive strategies for media use during a presidential campaign , 1996 .

[4]  William P. Eveland The Cognitive Mediation Model of Learning From the News , 2001, Commun. Res..

[5]  I. Ajzen Nature and operation of attitudes. , 2001, Annual review of psychology.

[6]  R. Pardo,et al.  Attitudes toward science among the European public: a methodological analysis , 2002 .

[7]  I. Ajzen Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the theory of planned behavior. , 2002 .

[8]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Knowledge, Reservations, or Promise? , 2002, Commun. Res..

[9]  Jean-François Rouet,et al.  Effects of Online Reading on Popular Science Comprehension , 2003 .

[10]  R. Pardo,et al.  The Cognitive Dimension of Public Perceptions of Science: Methodological Issues , 2004 .

[11]  Bruce V. Lewenstein,et al.  Public Attitudes toward Emerging Technologies , 2005 .

[12]  Sharon Dunwoody,et al.  Seeking and Processing Information about Impersonal Risk , 2006 .

[13]  G. Hancock,et al.  Understanding Consumers' Health Information Preferences Development and Validation of a Brief Screening Instrument , 2006, Journal of health communication.

[14]  S. Noar,et al.  Does tailoring matter? Meta-analytic review of tailored print health behavior change interventions. , 2007, Psychological bulletin.

[15]  S. Bamberg,et al.  Twenty years after Hines, Hungerford, and Tomera: A new meta-analysis of psycho-social determinants of pro-environmental behaviour , 2007 .

[16]  M. Bucchi,et al.  Handbook of Public Communication of Science and Technology , 2008 .

[17]  Sally Dibb,et al.  Bridging the segmentation theory/practice divide , 2009 .

[18]  Mike S. Schäfer From Public Understanding to Public Engagement , 2009 .

[19]  L. Kahlor,et al.  If We Seek, Do We Learn? , 2009 .

[20]  William P. Eveland,et al.  Exposure, Attention, or “Use” of News? Assessing Aspects of the Reliability and Validity of a Central Concept in Political Communication Research , 2009 .

[21]  Niels Mejlgaard,et al.  Participation and competence as joint components in a cross-national analysis of scientific citizenship , 2010 .

[22]  Lynne Doner Lotenberg,et al.  Segmentation and Targeting , 2011 .

[23]  Bernadette Sütterlin,et al.  Who puts the most energy into energy conservation? A segmentation of energy consumers based on energy-related behavioral characteristics , 2011 .

[24]  Katarina Prpić,et al.  Science, the public, and social elites: How the general public, scientists, top politicians and managers perceive science , 2011, Public understanding of science.

[25]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Identifying Like-Minded Audiences for Global Warming Public Engagement Campaigns: An Audience Segmentation Analysis and Tool Development , 2011, PloS one.

[26]  Drew A. Linzer,et al.  poLCA: An R Package for Polytomous Variable Latent Class Analysis , 2011 .

[27]  Albert C. Gunther,et al.  The Influence of Presumed Media Influence on News About Science and Scientists , 2011 .

[28]  Mario Gollwitzer,et al.  Latent-Class-Analysis , 2012 .

[29]  M. Hurtado,et al.  Political dimensions of scientific culture: Highlights from the Ibero-American survey on the social perception of science and scientific culture , 2012 .

[30]  Mike S. Schäfer Taking stock: A meta-analysis of studies on the media’s coverage of science , 2012, Public understanding of science.

[31]  Minoru Nakayama,et al.  A survey of scientific literacy to provide a foundation for designing science communication in Japan , 2013, Public understanding of science.

[32]  J. Besley The State of Public Opinion Research on Attitudes and Understanding of Science and Technology , 2013 .

[33]  Dietram A. Scheufele,et al.  Science, New Media, and the Public , 2013, Science.

[34]  A comparison between attitudes to climate change in Australia and the United States , 2013 .

[35]  F. C. D. Roten Public perceptions of animal experimentation across Europe , 2013 .

[36]  D. Brossard New media landscapes and the science information consumer , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[37]  D. Scheufele,et al.  The science of science communication , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[38]  D. Hine,et al.  Audience segmentation and climate change communication: conceptual and methodological considerations , 2014 .

[39]  Matthew C. Nisbet,et al.  Understanding Public Opinion in Debates over Biomedical Research: Looking beyond Political Partisanship to Focus on Beliefs about Science and Society , 2014, PloS one.

[40]  Rolf Lidskog,et al.  Risk, communication and trust: Towards an emotional understanding of trust , 2014, Public understanding of science.

[41]  S. Kristiansen,et al.  Risk perception of nuclear energy after fukushima: stability and change in public opinion in Switzerland , 2016 .

[42]  Barbara Kieslinger,et al.  Supporting emerging forms of citizen science: a plea for diversity, creativity and social innovation , 2016 .

[44]  Lars Guenther,et al.  Promises and reservations towards science and technology among South African publics: A culture-sensitive approach , 2018, Public understanding of science.

[45]  Mike S. Schäfer,et al.  Global warming’s five Germanys: A typology of Germans’ views on climate change and patterns of media use and information , 2017, Public understanding of science.

[46]  J. Swim,et al.  From Alarmed to Dismissive of Climate Change: A Single Item Assessment of Individual Differences in Concern and Issue Involvement , 2017 .

[47]  Richard Fletcher,et al.  Are people incidentally exposed to news on social media? A comparative analysis , 2018, New Media Soc..