These are the slides from my 2020 talk on what Society for Risk Analysis members think about the potential communication goal of ensuring policymakers consider scientific evidence when making decisions. Key message is that scientists are open to the society helping members pursue such goals and that the best predictor of support are perceived likelihood for impact, potential for engagement enjoyment, and ethicality.

1. This material is based upon
work supported by the National
Science Foundation (NSF, Grant
AISL 1421214-1421723. Any
opinions, findings, conclusions,
or recommendations expressed
in this material are those of the
authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the NSF.
What do SRA Members Think about the Goal of
Trying to Ensure Policymakers use Scientific Evidence
John C. Besley, Michigan State University
Pia-Joanna Schweizer, Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies, Potsdam

2. This project …
• Survey completed September/October 2020 online via Qualtrics
• Sent to N = 879; Completed responses, n = 338: Response rate: 38%
• Attempted census; inferential statistics are thus inappropriate
RQ1: What do SRA members think about the goal of
“ensuring that policy makers are using scientific evidence?
H1: (a) Benefit beliefs, (b) normative beliefs, and
(c) self-efficacy beliefs will predict prioritization of the goal?
Based on …
• Theory of Planned Behavior/Integrated Behavioral Model1
• Strategic Science Communication as as Planned Behavior approach2
1. Montano, D. E., &
Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory
of reasoned action, theory
of planned behavior, and the
integrated behavioral model.
In K. Glanz (Ed.), Health
behavior: Theory, research and
practice (5th ed.). Wiley-
Blackwell.
2. Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., &
Yuan, S. (2018). Scientists’
views about communication
objectives. Public
Understanding of Science, 27(6),
708-730.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0963
662517728478
Besley, J. C., Dudo, A., Yuan,
S., & Lawrence, F. (2018).
Understanding scientists’
willingness to engage. Science
Communication, 40(5), 559-
590.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1075
547018786561
Besley, J. C., O’Hara, K., &
Dudo, A. (2019). Strategic
science communication as
planned behavior:
Understanding scientists’
willingness to choose specific
tactics. PLoS ONE, 14(10),
e0224039.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journa
l.pone.0224039

3. What behavior do you hope will
ultimately happen from the time, money,
and energy you put into communicating?
Randen Pederson, Bridge to Nowwhere, via Flickr Creative Commons
?
What do we mean by behavioral goals?
Besley, J. C., Newman, T.,
Dudo, A., & Tiffany, L.-A. (In
press). Exploring Scholars’
Public Engagement Goals in
Canada and the United States.
Public Understanding of Science.

4. Goals are not ‘objectives’ or ‘tactics’ …
Novelty: We’ve studied
views about tactics and
objectives, but never views
about a specific goal …

5. 56
68
70
73
78
80
87
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Trying to ensure that policy makers adopt
specific laws, regulations, or policies
Trying to ensure adequate funding for
scientific research
Getting more young people to choose
scientific careers, including youth from…
Trying to help people use science to make
better personal decisions
Trying to ensure that scientists ask research
questions that benefit society
Trying to ensure that our culture values
science as a legitimate source of knowledge
Trying to ensure policy makers use
scientific evidence
Trying to ensure policymakers
use scientific evidence
Trying to ensure that our culture values
science as a legitimate source of knowledge
Trying to ensure that scientists ask
research questions that benefit society
Trying to help people use science to
make better personal decisions
Getting more young people to choose scientific
careers, including youth from diverse backgrounds
Trying to ensure adequate funding
for scientific research
Trying to ensure that policymakers
adopt specific laws, regulations, or policies
SRA Members’ Prioritization
of Potential Communication Goals
Very low
importance
Very high
importance
Average
importance
N = 338
• Respondents saw a slider
• Pattern of results
consistent with all
previous surveys of
other groups of
scientists
[W]e would like to know what you see as the most important or unimportant overall goals that people
such as yourself should have when deciding to take part in science and risk communication activities

6. Three Criterion Variables (Range 1-5 for all Variables):
Mean SD r12 r13, 23
1. Desired Engagement Opportunity Frequency: How regularly or rarely do you
think [the society] should try to provide members with opportunities to help
pursue the goal of trying to ensure that policymakers use scientific evidence?
(Very rarely|Very regularly)
3.88 0.94 .36 .16
3. Budget for Engagement: Roughly, what percentage of its annual spending
should societies such as [the society] put towards the goal of trying to ensure that
policymakers use scientific evidence?(0%, 1-5%, 6-10%, 11-15%, 16-20%, 25%+)
3.90 1.64 .22
3. Goal Importance: Trying to ensure policy makers use scientific evidence
(Rescaled from 100-point sliding scale from previous slide)
4.35 0.78
• Moderate support for SRA taking a role in advancing this goal; strong role for
the goal vs. strong role for “scientists such as yourself ” having this goal
• Limited correlation between variables
N = 338

7. Mean
(1-5) SD
Opportunity
Frequency
Budget for
Engagement
Goal
Importance
0.18 -0.46 2.68
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it is ethical or unethical
for [the society] to put time and resources towards the goal of …
(Very unethical|Very ethical)
4.40 0.90 0.25 0.33 0.14
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it would be satisfying or
unsatisfying for scientists such as yourself to see [the society] put
resources towards the goal of … (Very unsatisfying|Satisfying)
4.26 0.95 0.07 0.16 -0.01
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it would be enjoyable or
unenjoyable for scientists such as yourself to see [the society] put time
and resources towards the goal of … (Very unenjoyable|Very enjoyable)
3.83 1.08 0.20 0.20 0.20
Injunctive Norm: On average, to what degree do you think your
colleagues would approve or disapprove of [the society] putting time and
resources towards the goal of)? (Strongly disapprove|Strongly approve)
4.66 1.39 0.06 0.01 -0.01
Descriptive Norm: On average, how likely or unlikely are other scientific
societies in your area of interest [the society] to put time and resources
towards the goal of … (Very unlikely|Very likely = 5)
3.86 0.95 0.09 0.10 0.06
Benefit/External Efficacy: To what degree do you think that
[the society] could have a positive impact on society by putting time
and resources towards the goal of ... (in cooperation with members)?
(Almost no impact|Very large impact)
3.59 1.00 0.22 0.31 0.06
Organizational Self-efficacy: To what degree do you think that
[the society] has the resources (funding, communication support, contacts)
needed to pursue the goal of ... (Very few available resources|
A great deal of available resources)
2.93 0.91 0.03 -0.01 -0.04
Adjusted-R2 0.38 0.19 0.13
• Field, specialty group, country, and
demographics not substantially
associated with outcome variables!
• Putting time and resources into the
goals seen as ethical and satisfying;
more so than enjoyable
• Think colleagues are okay with the
goal but not as confident other
societies seek to advance the goal
• Somewhat unsure about the likelihood
for positive impact and that the
society has the capacity
N = 338, All variables measured on a 1-5 scale

8. Unstandardized Parameter Estimates from OLS Regression Mean SD
Opportunity
Frequency
Budget for
Engagement
Goal
Importance
Intercept 0.18 -0.46 2.68
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it is ethical or unethical
for [the society] to put time and resources towards the goal of …
(Very unethical|Very ethical)
4.40 0.90 0.25 0.33 0.14
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it would be satisfying or
unsatisfying for scientists such as yourself to see [the society] put
resources towards the goal of … (Very unsatisfying|Satisfying)
4.26 0.95 0.07 0.16 -0.01
Attitude: To what degree do you think that it would be enjoyable or
unenjoyable for scientists such as yourself to see [the society] put time
and resources towards the goal of … (Very unenjoyable|Very enjoyable)
3.83 1.08 0.20 0.20 0.20
Injunctive Norm: On average, to what degree do you think your
colleagues would approve or disapprove of [the society] putting time and
resources towards the goal of)? (Strongly disapprove|Strongly approve)
4.66 1.39 0.06 0.01 -0.01
Descriptive Norm: On average, how likely or unlikely are other scientific
societies in your area of interest [the society] to put time and resources
towards the goal of … (Very unlikely|Very likely = 5)
3.86 0.95 0.09 0.10 0.06
Benefit/External Efficacy: To what degree do you think that
[the society] could have a positive impact on society by putting time
and resources towards the goal of ... (in cooperation with members)?
(Almost no impact|Very large impact)
3.59 1.00 0.22 0.31 0.06
Organizational Self-efficacy: To what degree do you think that
[the society] has the resources (funding, communication support, contacts)
needed to pursue the goal of ... (Very few available resources|
A great deal of available resources)
2.93 0.91 0.03 -0.01 -0.04
Adjusted-R2 0.38 0.19 0.13
SRA members are more likely to want
the society to take a role in ‘ensuring
policymakers consider scientific evidence’
when they think its likely to be …
• Ethical
• Enjoyable
• Beneficial

9. Where to from here?
1. Evidence suggests that there’s some support for society putting more resources
into “ensuring policymakers consider scientific evidence” … but not universally
held view (means = ~3.9/5)
2. Those who want their society to invest more time and resources into “ensuring
policymakers consider scientific evidence” may wish to emphasize the following
to fellow members:
1. Ethicality
2. Enjoyment
3. Benefits (i.e., response or external efficacy)
3. Pattern of results similar to other planned communication
‘behaviors’ (i.e., tactics, objectives) previously studied …

10. Goals, Objectives, Tactics …