König Lars, Jucks Regina
University of Münster, Germany.
Public Underst Sci. 2019 May;28(4):401-416. doi: 10.1177/0963662519833903. Epub 2019 Mar 7.
Current scientific debates, such as on climate change, often involve emotional, hostile, and aggressive rhetorical styles. Those who read or listen to these kinds of scientific arguments have to decide whom they can trust and which information is credible. This study investigates how the language style (neutral vs aggressive) and the professional affiliation (scientist vs lobbyist) of a person arguing in a scientific debate influence his trustworthiness and the credibility of his information. In a 2 X 2 between-subject online experiment, participants watched a scientific debate. The results show that if the person was introduced as a lobbyist, he was perceived as less trustworthy. However, the person's professional affiliation did not affect the credibility of his information. If the person used an aggressive language style, he was perceived as less trustworthy. Furthermore, his information was perceived as less credible, and participants had the impression that they learned less from the scientific debate.
当前的科学辩论，比如关于气候变化的辩论，常常涉及情绪化、充满敌意和攻击性的修辞风格。阅读或聆听这类科学论点的人必须决定他们可以信任谁以及哪些信息是可信的。本研究调查了在科学辩论中进行辩论的人的语言风格（中立与激进）和职业归属（科学家与游说者）如何影响其可信度以及其信息的可信度。在一项2×2组间在线实验中，参与者观看了一场科学辩论。结果表明，如果此人被介绍为游说者，他会被认为可信度较低。然而，此人的职业归属并不影响其信息的可信度。如果此人使用激进的语言风格，他会被认为可信度较低。此外，他的信息被认为可信度较低，并且参与者感觉他们从这场科学辩论中学到的东西较少。
