当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Caveats in science-based news stories communicate caution without lowering interest.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied ( IF 2.813 ) Pub Date : 2019-06-27 , DOI: 10.1037/xap0000232
Lewis Bott 1 , Luke Bratton 1 , Bianca Diaconu 1 , Rachel C Adams 1 , Aimeé Challenger 1 , Jacky Boivin 1 , Andrew Williams 2 , Petroc Sumner 1
Affiliation  

Science stories in the media are strongly linked to changes in health-related behavior. Science writers (including journalists, press officers, and researchers) must therefore frame their stories to communicate scientific caution without disrupting coherence and disengaging the reader. In this study we investigate whether caveats ("Further research is needed to validate the results") satisfy this dual requirement. In four experiments participants read news reports with and without caveats. In Experiments 1 to 3, participants judged how cautious or confident researchers were, and how interesting or comprehensible they found the reports. News reports with caveats were judged as more cautious that those without, but levels of reader interest and comprehensibility were unaffected. In a fourth experiment, we created a mock newsroom and recruited journalism students to make judgments about which press releases should be published. Here, neither caveats nor the introduction of qualifying expressions in headlines had an effect on judgments of newsworthiness, consistent with Experiments 1 to 3. The reasons participants gave for rejecting a press release rarely referred to the caveat. Our results therefore suggest that science writers should include caveats in news reporting and that they can do so without fear of disengaging their readers or losing news uptake. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译:

基于科学的新闻报道中的注意事项传达了谨慎而不降低兴趣。

媒体上的科学故事与健康相关行为的变化紧密相关。因此,科学作家(包括新闻记者,新闻官员和研究人员)必须在不破坏连贯性和吸引读者注意力的情况下,为自己的故事定框,以传达科学上的谨慎。在本研究中,我们调查警告(“需要进一步研究以验证结果”)是否满足此双重要求。在四个实验中,参与者阅读带有或不带有警告的新闻报道。在实验1至3中,参与者判断研究人员有多谨慎或自信,以及他们对报告的发现有多有趣或可理解。带有警告的新闻报道被认为比没有警告的新闻报道要更为谨慎,但是读者的兴趣和理解程度不会受到影响。在第四个实验中 我们创建了一个模拟新闻编辑室,并招募了新闻专业的学生,​​以判断应发布哪些新闻稿。在这里,警告和标题中没有引入限定性表达都不会影响新闻价值的判断,这与实验1到3一致。参与者拒绝新闻稿的原因很少提及警告。因此,我们的结果表明,科学作家应在新闻报道中加入注意事项,并且他们可以这样做,而不必担心引起读者的注意或失去新闻的接受。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2019 APA,保留所有权利)。与实验1至3一致。参与者拒绝新闻稿的原因很少提及。因此,我们的结果表明,科学作家应在新闻报道中加入注意事项,并且他们可以这样做,而不必担心引起读者的注意或失去新闻的接受。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2019 APA,保留所有权利)。与实验1至3一致。参与者拒绝新闻稿的原因很少提及。因此,我们的结果表明,科学作家应在新闻报道中加入注意事项,并且他们可以这样做,而不必担心引起读者的注意或失去新闻的接受。(PsycINFO数据库记录(c)2019 APA,保留所有权利)。
更新日期:2019-11-01
down
wechat
bug