Constructing and influencing perceived authenticity in science communication: Experimenting with narrative

Abstract

This study develops a measure of perceived authenticity in science communication and then explores communication strategies to improve the perceived authenticity of a scientific message. The findings are consistent with literature around trust and credibility, but indicate that authenticity-the perception that the scientist is a unique individual with qualities beyond institutional affiliations or a role in the production of the research-may add a potentially important dimension to accepted categories of integrity and benevolence.

Charting cognition: Mapping public understanding of COVID-19

“…Narratives are both powerful persuasive tools ( Caulfield et al, 2019 ) and agents of confirmation bias and information avoidance ( Chater and Loewenstein, 2016 ); individuals are likely to both seek out and cling to those narratives that reinforce their existing worldviews. Saffran et al (2020) indicate that narrative science communication enhances perceived authenticity. While communicators may endeavor to use narratives to improve the perceived trustworthiness of credible scientists, the narrative effect may also be bolstering non-credible sources: Heidi’s belief that COVID-19 is the result of an escaped biological weapon seems to have stemmed from a laboratory worker’s narrative.…”

“…Narratives leveraged to advance credible scientific information may help address this problem. Saffran et al (2020) demonstrated that, even on politicized topics, narrative communication enhanced scientists’ perceived credibility. Liu et al (2020) found that narrative-induced sadness positively correlated with both information seeking and protective behaviors during an Ebola epidemic.…”

Linguistic changes in the transition from summaries to abstracts: The case of the Journal of Experimental Medicine

“…Authenticity has been described as higher when the speaker 'has a personal stake in the issue, is similar to the receiver' and is 'willing to admit uncertainty' (Renn & Levine, 1991). Indeed, narrative styles are perceived as more genuine and authentic (Saffran et al, 2020), so it is possible that this index, which has been empirically determined and tuned (Pennebaker et al, 2015), is at least partially recording a more narrative approach to science communication in the earlier summaries. This would be also confirmed by the stronger temporal focus of texts before the 1960s (Fig.…”

The Value in Science-Art Partnerships for Science Education and Science Communication

“…Such experiments may be able to explain why different authors state that appealing to emotions can be more influential when explaining and discussing scientific facts (Kolbert, 2017;Requarth, 2017;Saffran et al, 2020). It is easy to imagine a scenario where an aesthetic experience could act in the amygdala, insula, or dopaminergic reward system to then modulate "rational" and decision-making areas in the PFC and OFC, thereby priming individuals to receive a message.…”