University of Western Australia, Australia.
The Open University, UK.
Public Underst Sci. 2021 Jul;30(5):621-640. doi: 10.1177/0963662521991732. Epub 2021 Feb 11.
While anthropomorphism - the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things or events - is a fundamental part of human psychology and language, some scientists regard it as a source of misconceptions. This creates tension for those writing about science. Taking an experimental approach to diagnosing misconceptions, we compared the effects of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic writing on 174 adult readers' knowledge, understanding, confidence in and connection with the material. Reading any text at all improves readers' knowledge and ability to answer questions. There was no difference in understanding, enjoyment or frequency of anthropomorphic thinking between anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic texts. Those who read anthropomorphic text tended to use more vivid examples and fewer generalisations. This suggests that anthropomorphism acts as an evocative, albeit potentially distracting, technique but does not cause significant misconceptions. Writers should feel free to use anthropomorphic techniques if they are appropriate for their topic and their audience.
虽然拟人化——将人类的特征归因于非人类的事物或事件——是人类心理学和语言的基本组成部分，但一些科学家认为这是误解的根源。这给那些撰写科学文章的人带来了紧张感。我们采取实验方法来诊断误解，比较了拟人化和非拟人化写作对 174 名成年读者的知识、理解、信心和与材料的联系的影响。阅读任何文本都能提高读者的知识和回答问题的能力。在理解、享受或拟人思维的频率方面，拟人化文本和非拟人化文本之间没有差异。阅读拟人化文本的人往往会使用更生动的例子，而不是更多的概括。这表明拟人化是一种唤起性的（尽管可能分散注意力）的技巧，但不会导致重大误解。如果拟人化技术适合他们的主题和受众，那么作家应该可以自由地使用拟人化技术。
