你怎么反驳否认科学的表情包呢?模因反应对于回应网上的科学否认可能会适得其反。

IF 3.3 2区 文学 Q1 COMMUNICATION
Hannah Little, Justin Sulik
{"title":"你怎么反驳否认科学的表情包呢?模因反应对于回应网上的科学否认可能会适得其反。","authors":"Hannah Little, Justin Sulik","doi":"10.1177/09636625251341509","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.</p>","PeriodicalId":48094,"journal":{"name":"Public Understanding of Science","volume":" ","pages":"9636625251341509"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How do you argue with a science denial meme? Memed responses may be counter-productive for responding to science denial online.\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Little, Justin Sulik\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/09636625251341509\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48094,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"9636625251341509\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Public Understanding of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251341509\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"文学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Understanding of Science","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625251341509","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

否认科学的“模因”是一种病毒式传播形式,试图用令人难忘的声音片段来破坏复杂的科学思想。这些模因歪曲了它们正在“揭穿”的科学内容,使得对它们的回应变得具有挑战性。为了确定共同的策略,我们分析了Twitter/X对反进化梗“为什么还有猴子?”的回应。策略包括从字面上解释为什么模因背后的推理是有缺陷的,以及在不同程度上反映原始模因的类比(例如在结构和/或领域)。我们对来自美国的参与者进行了实验,评估了不同的应对策略,这些参与者要么支持进化论,要么否认进化论。参与者评估了他们对原始模因和不同回应策略的理解,以及他们认为这些策略的有效性和说服力。在所有参与者中,字面解释被认为比类比反应更容易理解、更有效、更有说服力。因此,Memed反驳可能是一种适得其反的策略,用于回应网上的科学否认。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
How do you argue with a science denial meme? Memed responses may be counter-productive for responding to science denial online.

Science denial 'memes' are a viral form of communication that attempt to undermine complex scientific ideas using memorable soundbites. These memes misrepresent the scientific content they are 'debunking', making responding to them challenging. To identify common strategies, we analysed Twitter/X responses to the anti-evolution meme 'why are there still monkeys?'. Strategies included literal explanations about why the reasoning behind the meme is flawed, and analogies that mirror the original meme to varying degrees (e.g. in structure and/or domain). We evaluated different response strategies using an experiment with participants from the United States who either endorsed or denied evolution. Participants rated their understanding of the original meme and different response strategies, and how effective and persuasive they found them. Across participants, literal explanations were rated more understandable, effective and persuasive than analogical responses. Memed rebuttals may thus be a counter-productive strategy for responding to science denial online.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
9.80%
发文量
80
期刊介绍: Public Understanding of Science is a fully peer reviewed international journal covering all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Public Understanding of Science is the only journal to cover all aspects of the inter-relationships between science (including technology and medicine) and the public. Topics Covered Include... ·surveys of public understanding and attitudes towards science and technology ·perceptions of science ·popular representations of science ·scientific and para-scientific belief systems ·science in schools
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信