Author: Lukas Gierth – University of Muenster. Germany

The rise of social media as a dominant information source has given new avenues for science communicators to deliver scientific information to the general audience. Compared to Twitter, Facebook and the blogosphere, YouTube has a distinct and unique format of generally short video clips. While the scientific style of communication has always removed from how lay people communicate, this disconnect becomes potentially more pronounced when entirely new platforms, such as YouTube, introduce their own stylistic elements into communication.

YouTube videos tend to be short, informal and often try to move at a quick pace, utilizing techniques such as jump cuts and easily understandable infographics, such as brightly colored circles and arrows. Nevertheless, these videos can be informative and there are several large YouTube channels focused specifically on scientific information, such as VSauce and Seeker. However, these channels are usually led by social media personalities, not researchers. It stands to question how the general audience would perceive the use of the previously described stylistic elements by researchers. Are researchers and formal science communicators expected to adhere to a more formal style, even on YouTube? Additionally, visual expression by YouTubers is not limited to videos; the thumbnails of videos are often carefully designed and can inform the decision of clicking on a video, as well as raise certain expectations users have towards the contents of a video.

To investigate these questions, I propose an experimental paradigm in which participants use a simulated, externally valid YouTube interface to research scientific information, choose videos they deem appropriate and then watch and rate these videos on relevant outcome variables, such as trustworthiness and acceptance of the scientific message. By varying the degree of YouTube-typical stylistic elements in thumbnail and video design, one could analyze these elements’ main effects individually, as well as their interaction with each other.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Idea in progress
Theme: Stories
Area of interest: Building a theoretical basis for science communication

Author: Lukas Gierth – University of Muenster. Germany

Co-author: Rainer Bromme – University of Muenster

Amidst long standing socio-scientific controversies regarding topics such as vaccination and climate change, lay people are required to make up their mind about scientific phenomena on a regular basis. However, most people lack the necessary expertise to evaluate scientific claims on face value and instead gravitate towards the supposed evidence more in line with their own preconceived notions about these scientific topics. This form of self-serving reasoning is also known as motivated reasoning and could lead people to misweigh, misunderstand or misinterpret scientific information. However, motivated reasoning could also result in vigilance towards deception and thus improve judgment of the trustworthiness and pertinence of experts.

For example, one might not be able to scientifically verify an expert’s claim about the health impacts of sugar, but if this expert is funded by Coca-Cola, one would be hesitant to believe him or her. Further, one might also be vigilant against pro-sugar claims made by this expert and thus evaluate them more closely. In this case, the motivation to not be deceived by a conflicted source would increase scrutiny towards the claim, thereby flipping the notion of motivated reasoning being a hindrance to science communication on its head – as it would lead to more and not less sophisticated reasoning.

To address these notions, we performed a between-subjects experiment. Participants were presented with an online science article dealing with the effects of sugar consumption on short-term memory. We varied the source of funding to introduce a perceived conflict of interest, as well as the claim made by the expert source resulting in three experimental conditions. Outcome variables included a trustworthiness measure, assessing perceived integrity, benevolence and expertise, and a numerical reasoning measure. Since data-collection is ongoing (current N=116, projected N=175), we cannot report results at this moment.

The author has not yet submitted a copy of the full paper.

Presentation type: Individual paper
Theme: Science
Area of interest: Building a theoretical basis for science communication