The study investigates scientists’ experiences of hostility during the COVID-19 pandemic in relation to their public communications. Out of 4,207 surveyed scientists, a significant number participated in various media formats regarding COVID-19. Findings revealed that hostility was most prevalent in online media, with 30% reporting negative experiences compared to nearly 15% from news media. Indirect hostility was even more widespread, with over half witnesses to attacks on colleagues.
The study also assessed appraisals of threat and efficacy regarding public engagement. While scientists recognized anti-scientific hostility as a serious issue, those who experienced direct harassment showed less belief in the effectiveness of withdrawal as a protective measure. In contrast, observations of hostility toward peers reinforced the perception of a significant threat.
A hierarchical regression model indicated that perceived threat was influenced by discipline and direct experiences of hostility, particularly from social media. Results suggest that younger scientists felt less threatened than older colleagues, and public engagement intentions varied based on perceived threat and efficacy levels. Importantly, those feeling a greater threat yet questioning the efficacy of withdrawal were more willing to engage publicly than those believing escape was a strong protection.
The path model demonstrated that a higher perception of the efficacy of withdrawal correlated with lower engagement across all communication channels. Overall, insights from the study highlight varied responses to hostility within the scientific community and underline the complex relationship between perceived threats and public engagement intentions during the pandemic.
