Although storytelling often has negative connotations within science, narrative formats of communication should not be disregarded when communicating science to nonexpert audiences. Narratives offer increased comprehension, interest, and engagement. Nonexperts get most of their science information from mass media content, which is itself already biased toward narrative formats. Narratives are also intrinsically persuasive, which offers science communicators tactics for persuading otherwise resistant audiences, although such use also raises ethical considerations. Future intersections of narrative research with ongoing discussions in science communication are introduced.persuasion | ethics S torytelling often has a bad reputation within science (1).Viewed as baseless or even manipulative, stories are often denigrated with statements such as, "the plural of anecdote is not data." Such a perspective is valuable within the context of scientific data collection to underscore the important difference between making informed generalizations from systematically sampled populations versus overgeneralizations from small and often biased samples.However, when the context moves from data collection to the communication of science to nonexpert audiences, stories, anecdotes, and narratives become not only more appropriate but potentially more important. Research suggests that narratives are easier to comprehend and audiences find them more engaging than traditional logical-scientific communication (3, 4). More pragmatically, the sources from which nonexperts receive most of their science information are already biased toward narrative formats of communication. Once out of formal schooling, nonexpert audiences get the majority of their scientific information from mass media content (5). Because media practitioners have to compete for the attention of their audiences, they routinely rely on stories, anecdotes, and other narrative formats to cut although the information clutter and resonate with their audiences. Although the plural of anecdote may not be data, the anecdote has a greater chance of reaching and engaging with a nonexpert audience. The challenge for science communicators, then, is to decide when and how narratives can effectively and appropriately help them communicate to nonexperts about science.The purpose of this article is to synthesize literature on narrative communication and place it within a science communication context. The article begins with a review of narrative literature, as well as the mass media context through which most nonexpert audiences get their information about science. The article then reviews the potential persuasive impacts of narrative communication and the ethical considerations of using narrative to communicate science. Finally, future intersections of narrative with ongoing questions in science communication are introduced. NarrativesMost individuals have an inherent understanding of what it means to tell a story. Communication scholars supplement this colloquial understanding of narr...
This research examines the influence of evidence type (statistical, narrative, or hybrid) and narrative type (first-person or third-person) on risk perception about human papillomavirus (HPV) and behavioral intention to get the HPV vaccine. In total, 174 college students who had not received the HPV vaccine participated in a controlled experiment. Results show that the hybrid message containing both statistical and narrative descriptions of HPV resulted in greater perceived risk of getting HPV than either of the messages containing just one type of evidence--statistical or narrative. Moreover, the first-person narrative message led to greater risk perception about HPV than the third-person narrative message. Both evidence type and narrative type had an indirect effect on intention to get the HPV vaccine free of cost through HPV risk perception. Implications of the findings for vaccine risk communication are discussed.
Narratives represent a powerful and ubiquitous form of communication that influence what individuals believe about the world. While the field of narrative persuasion investigates how narratives affect attitudes and behaviors, it rarely considers structural variables discussed in the field of discourse psychology. This study examines the utility of bridging these fields by testing the persuasive influence of novel science information relative to the internal causal structure of a narrative. Results suggest that information placed at causal locations of a narrative result in greater acceptance of information than the same information placed at noncausal locations within the same narrative. These findings suggest that the within-narrative variable of causality can influence the persuasive impact of information inserted into a narrative. In response, this study identifies a significant source of variance that has thus far been overlooked in studies of narrative persuasion.
This article discusses three ethical considerations science communicators face when considering narrative as a communication technique for science policy contexts: (a) What is the underlying purpose of using narrative: comprehension or persuasion? (b) What are the appropriate levels of accuracy to maintain? (c) Should narrative be used at all? These considerations intersect with perceptions of the appropriate roles of communication and of scientists within democracy. By providing a clearer articulation of these ethical considerations, the authors hope that narrative can become a more useful communication technique toward informed science policy decisions.
Climate scientists need the trust of lay audiences if they are to share their knowledge. But significant audience segments—those doubtful or dismissive of climate change—distrust climate scientists. In response, climate scientists can undertake one of two general communication strategies for enhancing trust, each appealing to one of two broad types of cognitive processing mechanisms. In the first, the communicator displays traits like humor, attractiveness, vigorous delivery, and likeability that audiences use as heuristics in determining whom to trust. But this strategy is unlikely to be successful with the very audiences who are its main targets, since those audiences will be primed to employ a more analytic and critical approach to assessing trustworthiness. In the second communicative strategy, the communicator earns trust by undertaking burdens and commitments and making herself vulnerable in ways her audience can enforce. This vulnerability signals her trustworthiness, since the audience can reason that she would not undertake such risks unless she was confident in what she was saying. Climate scientists have a variety of ways of making themselves vulnerable, including committing themselves to engaging with doubtful and dismissive audiences, undertaking burdens of proof to argue with them, empowering audiences to assess the science themselves, admitting error, and focusing on small issues. Overall, when adopting the second strategy, climate scientists must extend trust in order to earn trust, committing themselves to an on‐going relationship within which their true trustworthiness will become apparent. WIREs Clim Change 2014, 5:151–160. doi: 10.1002/wcc.262 This article is categorized under: Perceptions, Behavior, and Communication of Climate Change > Communication Social Status of Climate Change Knowledge > Knowledge and Practice
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.