Afforded by the unprecedented interactivity of social media, social media personae can build strong relationships with followers. Such relationships, which carry great marketing potential, appeal to corporates and brands. Based on the literature of source credibility and communication justice, this study investigated the determinants of the parasocial relationship between social media influencers and their followers, as well as its effect on followers’ interests in the products advertised by influencers. The results of an online survey (N = 355) showed that, followers’ perceived attractiveness of influencers, similarity to influencers, procedural fairness and interpersonal fairness of their interaction with influencers are positively related to the strength of their parasocial relationship with influencers, which further mediates the effect of the aforementioned factors on followers’ interests in influencer-promoted products. The findings of this study explicated the mechanism through which influencers foster relationships with followers and also provide practitioners with insights on orchestrating strategic influencer campaigns.

The current study explores the degree to which two-way communication is applied in science communication contexts in North America, based on the experiences of science communication trainers. Interviews with 24 science communication trainers suggest that scientists rarely focus on applying two-way communication tactics, such as listening to their audiences or tailoring messages based on their audiences’ needs. Also, although trainers generally recognize the value of two-way communication, it is seldom addressed in science communication trainings. The importance of two-way communication in fostering interactive dialogical communication between scientists and the public, and thus the importance of emphasizing it more during science communication training, is discussed.

This study identifies key characteristics of current science communication training programs based in North America. We report findings from semistructured interviews conducted with science communication trainers (N = 32) that examined programs’ curricula, trainees, and impacts. Findings suggest that the current landscape of science communication training is one where a range of well-intentioned individuals and groups provide guidance to mostly self-selecting scientists. Training typically involves helping scientists find and refine their own message and then expecting these individuals to find their own opportunities to communicate. Programs commonly emphasize technical communication skills more than strategy, rarely conduct robust evaluation, and are not typically designed to enhance inclusivity. Researcher-trainer partnerships can help maximize the reach and positive impacts of these programs.

The present study investigated the effects of communication styles, source expertise, and audiences’ preexisting attitudes in the contexts of the debate regarding genetically modified organisms. A between-subject experiment (N = 416) was conducted manipulating communication styles (aggressive vs. polite) and the expertise of the communicator (scientist vs. nonscientist) in blog articles. The results showed significant effects of communicator expertise and individuals’ preexisting attitudes on writer likability and message quality, depending on the communication style used. Expectancy violation was found as a significant mediator that explains the differences. These findings provided a plausible explanation for the way in which communication styles work in science communication contexts and offered practical implications for science communicators to communicate more strategically.

A randomized experiment of 1,024 U.S. adults was conducted to examine the effect of the war on science frame on perceptions of scientists’ credibility. Because recent use of this frame is a response to the Trump Administration, those who politically align with him (e.g., conservatives) are likely to experience identity threat when confronted with the war on science frame. Results show that when viewed as aggressive, the war on science frame prompted conservatives to report lower agreement with a scientist credibility index than liberals, suggesting that the war on science frame has the potential to further polarize science.