Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness.

IF 3.5 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION Public Understanding of Science Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-05 DOI:10.1177/09636625231176377
Mark Jonas, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Tom Rosman
{"title":"Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness.","authors":"Mark Jonas, Martin Kerwer, Anita Chasiotis, Tom Rosman","doi":"10.1177/09636625231176377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Lay readers' trust in scientific texts can be shaped by perceived text easiness and scientificness. The two effects seem vital in a time of rapid science information sharing, yet have so far only been examined separately. A preregistered online study was conducted to assess them jointly, to probe for author and text trustworthiness overlap, and to investigate interindividual influences on the effects. <i>N</i> = 1467 lay readers read four short research summaries, with easiness and scientificness (high vs low) being experimentally varied. A more scientific writing style led to higher perceived author and text trustworthiness. Higher personal justification belief, lower justification by multiple-sources belief, and lower need for cognitive closure attenuated the influence of scientificness on trustworthiness. However, text easiness showed no influence on trustworthiness and no interaction with text scientificness. Implications for future studies and suggestions for enhancing the perceived trustworthiness of research summaries are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"37-57"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10756015/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625231176377","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Lay readers' trust in scientific texts can be shaped by perceived text easiness and scientificness. The two effects seem vital in a time of rapid science information sharing, yet have so far only been examined separately. A preregistered online study was conducted to assess them jointly, to probe for author and text trustworthiness overlap, and to investigate interindividual influences on the effects. N = 1467 lay readers read four short research summaries, with easiness and scientificness (high vs low) being experimentally varied. A more scientific writing style led to higher perceived author and text trustworthiness. Higher personal justification belief, lower justification by multiple-sources belief, and lower need for cognitive closure attenuated the influence of scientificness on trustworthiness. However, text easiness showed no influence on trustworthiness and no interaction with text scientificness. Implications for future studies and suggestions for enhancing the perceived trustworthiness of research summaries are discussed.

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
非专业研究摘要的可信度指标:科学性超越简易性
非专业读者对科学文本的信任可能受文本易读性和科学性的影响。在科学信息快速共享的时代,这两种效应似乎至关重要,但迄今为止,这两种效应仅被分开研究。我们进行了一项预先登记的在线研究,以联合评估这两种效应,探究作者和文本可信度的重叠,并调查个体间对这两种效应的影响。N = 1467 名非专业读者阅读了四篇简短的研究摘要,并通过实验改变了摘要的易读性和科学性(高与低)。科学性更强的写作风格会提高作者和文章的可信度。较高的个人合理性信念、较低的多来源合理性信念和较低的认知封闭性需求削弱了科学性对可信度的影响。然而,文本的易读性对可信度没有影响,与文本的科学性也没有交互作用。本文讨论了未来研究的意义以及提高研究摘要感知可信度的建议。
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
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
期刊最新文献
A different image? Images of scientists in Chinese films. Sociotechnical imaginaries of gene editing in food and agriculture: A comparative content analysis of mass media in the United States, New Zealand, Japan, the Netherlands, and Canada. The public you want, the public you get: Exploring the relationship between the public and science in the debate on xenotransplantation. Chinese scientists' mediated participation in public outreach: Multiple direct and personal norm-mediated predictors. Climate change by any other name: Social representations and language practices of coastal inhabitants on Mayotte Island in the Indian Ocean.
×
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