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（将人类特征归因于非人类事物或事件）是人类心理学和语言的基本组成部分，但一些科学家认为它是误解的根源。这给那些写科学的人带来了压力。采用实验方法来诊断误解，我们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。阅读任何文本都可以提高读者的知识和回答问题的能力。拟人化文本和非拟人化文本在拟人化思维的理解、享受或频率上没有差异。那些阅读拟人化文本的人倾向于使用更生动的例子和更少的概括。这表明拟人化是一种令人回味的技术，尽管可能会分散注意力，但不会引起严重的误解。如果适合他们的主题和受众，作家应该随意使用拟人化技术。