Abstract
Keywords
Science skepticism is pervasive. Take climate science, for example. 44% of Americans do not believe that human activity is causing climate change (Yale Program on Climate Change Communication, 2022). The results are even more concerning in other countries; in Tajikistan and South Africa, for instance, only less than a fifth of the population believes in the human role in global warming (Levi, 2021). Unfortunately, this is not unique to climate science; it is observed in various domains including vaccination, genetic modification, and evolution (Rutjens et al., 2022). Science skepticism also appears to be on the rise. For example, a study of nearly 100 million Facebook users showed that anti-vaccination clusters show exponential growth in sharp contrast to pro-vaccination clusters (N. F. Johnson et al., 2020). This is concerning given the potentially catastrophic consequences of science skepticism which is perhaps best illustrated by the recent and ongoing struggle to contain the COVID-19 pandemic (Brzezinski et al., 2021).
I argue that crowd science—that is, the inclusion of the broader public, the
While the value of crowd science in improving scientific endeavors is widely acknowledged, it is rarely considered a mechanism to grow faith in science. Building on recent marketing research, I discuss the potential psychological consequences of including the public in science both for the active participants of crowd science initiatives and for the broader body of public who are simply observers of these initiatives.
The psychological consequences for the crowd
At the most basic level, crowd science initiatives present a platform for the public to engage with and influence scientific endeavors. These interactions enable the public to learn and think about various scientific projects, which likely promotes a greater familiarity and appreciation of the scientific method. Indeed, several studies reported the learning benefits of crowd science initiatives (e.g., Aristeidou and Herodotou, 2020; Bonney et al., 2016). These benefits included a better understanding of scientific method and processes (e.g., academic publications and peer review), as well as gaining context-specific knowledge in various disciplines such as astronomy, neuroscience, and environmental science (for a review, see Aristeidou and Herodotou, 2020). While the evidence regarding whether this learning actually translates to a greater appreciation of science is relatively scarce, there are some promising findings. For example, participants of “Citizen Sky” —an astronomy project that involved the crowd for data classification, collection, and analysis—have shown significant positive differences in terms of their attitudes toward science (e.g., interest in science and regular use of science knowledge in everyday life) (Price and Lee, 2013).
A less obvious benefit of crowd science has to do with a cognitive bias called the IKEA effect. That is, people often have a positive bias toward things when they take part in creating them. For example, they often place disproportionately high valuations on a self-created product than on an identical product that is created by someone else (Norton et al., 2012). This effect is primarily explained by feelings of competence from self-creation and an enhanced sense of psychological ownership (Mochon et al., 2012; Sarstedt et al., 2017). Based on this research, it is plausible that when the crowd participates in a science project, they experience the IKEA effect toward that particular project and its outcomes, and more generally toward science.
Importantly, the IKEA effect does not necessarily require major involvement; even a relatively small input in a project should suffice. For instance, drawing on a series of experiments, scholars have found that consumers who are only involved in selecting new products—by simply casting a vote on their preferred product among alternatives—experience a sense of psychological ownership of the target product and are more willing to buy it (Fuchs et al., 2010). Even a minor involvement in crowd science projects could therefore bring about greater confidence in science.
In addition to reducing science skepticism, this kind of psychological ownership of science projects might also promote science advocacy. For example, one study found that 93% of participants of a crowd science initiative have reported proactively sharing positive information about it with their family, friends, and/or colleagues (M. F. Johnson et al., 2014). Marketing researchers have also shown that consumers are more inclined to generate positive word-of-mouth for brands that include consumers in their new product design processes (Fuchs et al., 2010; Schreier et al., 2012). It is therefore plausible that crowd members who experience psychological ownership might be more willing to proactively create positive science communication while also countering science misinformation.
The psychological consequences for the broader public
While being able to increase faith among the participants of crowd science initiatives is undisputedly important, the real and almost entirely unutilized potential of crowd science is its psychological effects on non-participating public members. This is because these non-participating members, or observers, naturally make up a large majority of the public. In addition, reaching them is arguably more important as most science skeptics will not take part in crowd science initiatives in the first place.
Recent marketing research suggests that, whenever possible, there is value in making these observers aware of crowd science. Specifically, this line of research has shown that simply communicating customer involvement initiatives brought about positive responses from non-involved consumers. For example, consumers prefer an identical product more and pay more for it when it is presented as user-designed (vs. internally designed) or crowdfunded (vs. VC funded) (Acar et al., 2021; Dahl et al., 2015). This effect is explained by vicarious empowerment feelings (from seeing the empowerment of similar others, i.e., other consumers) which then promotes a stronger identification with the brand (Dahl et al., 2015). Additionally, when an identical ad is presented as consumer-generated, it was viewed as more trustworthy (Lawrence et al., 2013).
In a similar vein, research on participatory approaches highlighted the value of involvement of a broader range of stakeholders (such as policymakers, businesses, and the public) across various public policy fields such as urban planning, health, or water management. Specifically, this research suggested that participatory programs can promote legitimacy and acceptance by the general public (e.g., Evans et al., 2010; Von Korff et al., 2012). These findings also resonate with extant research on “mini-publics” —that is, select citizen groups who are invited to deliberate on policy directions. This research suggests that citizens who are aware of the involvement of mini-publics in a policy decision-making process perceive a greater sense of efficacy in influencing government decisions, believe the decisions to be fairer, and have an increased level of political trust (e.g., Boulianne, 2018; Werner and Marien, 2022). Taken together, increasing the visibility of crowd science initiatives to the general public could prompt them to vicariously feel empowered and identified, and, as a result, trust more in science. Taken together, being aware of crowd science initiatives might prompt public members to vicariously feel empowered and identified, and, as a result, trust more in science.
Two potential caveats are worth noting. These potential effects are attenuated when the task that the crowd undertakes is perceived to be complex (e.g., products that are high in design complexity) (Schreier et al., 2012) and even reversed in high personal risk domains (e.g., products that involve high physical risk) (Acar et al., 2021). In such contexts, highlighting crowd involvement is likely ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. This implies that observers might be less receptive to crowd science initiatives when the crowdsourced task requires technical expertise (e.g., designing experimental protocols), especially if the project outcome is perceived to contain high risk (e.g., medical research). Hence, the psychological value of crowd science in addressing some controversies, such as vaccine hesitancy, might be limited. However, most crowd science tasks are not complex (e.g., idea generation, data collection, and funding) and do not contain direct personal risk. Many life science or physical science disciplines (e.g., biology, ecology, and astronomy)—including areas with the greatest controversy like climate science—should therefore be able to harness the value of these psychological consequences.
Leveraging the psychological consequences of crowd science
These psychological effects on observers rely on proactive and prominent communication of crowd science initiatives. Some marketers have been successful in doing this. For example, LEGO includes a “designed by LEGO fans” tag in its product package when a product originates from its crowdsourcing community (Acar and Puntoni, 2016). Likewise, Amazon explicitly markets relevant products under a specific tag: “Made on Kickstarter: Shop a wide range of Kickstarter projects backed by a passionate community.” A similar approach could be embraced in crowd science communication. It is also important to signal that the public’s input is genuinely valued; otherwise, these initiatives might exacerbate skepticism rather than mitigate it.
Realizing the full potential of crowd science hinges on proactively reaching science skeptics and deniers. Targeted communication campaigns—based on a thorough understanding of the psychographic and behavioral characteristics of this segment—could be the key to increasing awareness and interest from this segment. Moreover, designing crowd science initiatives in a way that appeals to the broadest audience possible, even to those who are not intrinsically interested in science, is important to promote subsequent engagement from this segment. For example, these initiatives could include a wider range of incentives (e.g., financial rewards and recognition) or gamification elements as initiatives like Foldit an EyeWire already do.
However, it is important to also consider the potential risks associated with involving deniers in crowd science initiatives. One risk is that deniers may attempt to disrupt an initiative, particularly when open and direct communication between crowd members is allowed. Some ways to mitigate this include establishing clear rules for participation and norms of civility to promote respectful communication, and moderating participation to ensure adherence to these rules and norms. Indeed, some well-organized mini-public initiatives have shown that it is possible to bring together citizens with differing political beliefs in a constructive manner (Dryzek et al., 2019). Another potential risk is that science deniers may also leverage crowdsourcing for their anti-science campaigns. While crowdsourcing platforms should draw a clear red line against such campaigns—not only for the public good but also for the protection of their own reputation—regulatory mechanisms that hold platforms accountable for the campaigns they host could motivate stronger due diligence. For example, EU Crowdfunding Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2020/1503 on European crowdfunding service providers for business) requires platforms to “undertake at least a minimum level of due diligence” in respect of project owners’ criminal records, which could be extended beyond criminal records to include disinformation and beyond crowdfunding to include other crowd-based platforms.
Who should take responsibility for the communication of crowd science? The two primary candidates are policymakers and research-focused organizations (e.g., research councils or associations) given their interest in increasing public trust in science. Such institutions might, for example, directly promote these initiatives and their outcomes to the broader public or provide research teams with grants dedicated to crowd science communication.
All in all, involving the public in crowd science initiatives, and proactively communicating this to the broader public, show great promise in tackling growing skepticism toward science. It is of course not the panacea; science skepticism is a complex problem that requires multiple initiatives in tandem including improved science education and open science practices (Pittinsky, 2015). Crowd science could complement these as a key mechanism to strengthen the connection between scientists, science, and the public.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
Funding
ORCID iD
