Contested Certainty and Credibility: The Effect of Personal Stories and Scientific Evidence in User Comments on News Story Evaluation and Relevance

IF 4.6 1区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Science Communication Pub Date : 2023-02-01 DOI:10.1177/10755470221150503
Amanda Hinnant, Sisi Hu, Yoorim Hong, R. Young
{"title":"Contested Certainty and Credibility: The Effect of Personal Stories and Scientific Evidence in User Comments on News Story Evaluation and Relevance","authors":"Amanda Hinnant, Sisi Hu, Yoorim Hong, R. Young","doi":"10.1177/10755470221150503","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined how user comments influence perceptions of a less-controversial news story. The results of a 2 (argument direction: supporting vs. dissenting comments) × 2 (evidence type: anecdotal vs. scientific evidence referenced in comments) between-subjects factorial design experiment with a no-comments control group (N = 426) showed that comments have independent effects on the evaluation of medical science news stories on perceived relevance, uncertainty, and risk perception. Also, the types of comments interact with participants’ intellectual humility and subjective numeracy. The findings illustrate that comments may have a deleterious impact on audience perception of journalistic stories and scientific issues.","PeriodicalId":47828,"journal":{"name":"Science Communication","volume":"45 1","pages":"65 - 94"},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science Communication","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470221150503","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined how user comments influence perceptions of a less-controversial news story. The results of a 2 (argument direction: supporting vs. dissenting comments) × 2 (evidence type: anecdotal vs. scientific evidence referenced in comments) between-subjects factorial design experiment with a no-comments control group (N = 426) showed that comments have independent effects on the evaluation of medical science news stories on perceived relevance, uncertainty, and risk perception. Also, the types of comments interact with participants’ intellectual humility and subjective numeracy. The findings illustrate that comments may have a deleterious impact on audience perception of journalistic stories and scientific issues.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
有争议的确定性和可信度:用户评论中的个人故事和科学证据对新闻故事评估和相关性的影响
这项研究考察了用户评论如何影响人们对争议较小的新闻报道的看法。受试者与无评论对照组(N=426)之间的2(论点方向:支持与反对评论)×2(证据类型:评论中引用的轶事与科学证据)析因设计实验的结果表明,评论对医学科学新闻报道的感知相关性、不确定性和风险感知的评估具有独立影响。此外,评论的类型与参与者的智力谦逊和主观算术能力相互作用。研究结果表明,评论可能会对观众对新闻故事和科学问题的看法产生有害影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Science Communication
Science Communication COMMUNICATION-
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
4.40%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Science Communication is a prestigious journal that focuses on communication research. It is recognized globally for publishing top-quality manuscripts that demonstrate excellent theoretical frameworks and robust methodology. Our journal embraces a broad definition of science, encompassing not only the natural and physical sciences but also social science, technology, environment, engineering, and health. Regardless of the scientific area, effective communication is always the focal point of our investigations. Apart from theoretical and methodological rigor, we place great emphasis on the practical implications of scientific communication. Therefore, we expect all submitted manuscripts to address the real-world applications and significance of their research, alongside theoretical considerations. In summary, Science Communication is an internationally renowned journal dedicated to bridging the gap between science and society. By promoting effective communication in various scientific domains, we strive to engage readers with intriguing research that has tangible implications for the world around us.
期刊最新文献
Assessing the Outputs, Outcomes, and Impacts of Science Communication: A Quantitative Content Analysis of 128 Science Communication Projects. Science Communication Spaces as “Pockets of Belonging”: Inviting in a Plurality of Science Identities for Scientists-in-Training Storytelling in Science Film: Narrative Engagement Relates to Greater Knowledge, Interest, and Identification With Science Video-Based Group-Values Affirmation Reduces Defensive Responses to Risk Messages Beyond Deliberation: Alternative Forms of Public (Dis)engagement With Science
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1