ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2019
Hot topics in science communication: Aggressive language decreases trustworthiness and credibility in scientific debates.
Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.
- Language Use in Conversational Agent-Based Health Communication: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Pooled it
- Narratives of hope and concern? Examining the impact of climate scientists' communication on credibility and engagement.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2025Article
- The impacts of expertise, conflict, and scientific literacy on trust and belief in scientific disagreements.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Communication in oncology between healthcare providers, patients, the scientific community, and the media: recommendations from the Italian Association of Medical Oncology (AIOM).Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Dealing with dissent from the medical ranks: Public health authorities and COVID-19 communication.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- Indicators of trustworthiness in lay-friendly research summaries: Scientificness surpasses easiness.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- "I am Young, Why Should I Vaccinate?" How empathetic and aggressive communication on social media impact young adults' attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Receptive to an authoritative voice? Experimental evidence on how patronizing language and stressing institutional sources affect public receptivity to nutrition information.SSM - population health · 2022Article
- The Development and Evaluation of an e-Learning Course That Promotes Digital Health Literacy in School-age Children: Pre-Post Measurement Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Effects of Positive Language and Profession on Trustworthiness and Credibility in Online Health Advice: Experimental Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020Article
- Attacking science on social media: How user comments affect perceived trustworthiness and credibility.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2020Article
- Beware of vested interests: Epistemic vigilance improves reasoning about scientific evidence (for some people).PloS one · 2020Article
- Constraints and Affordances of Online Engagement With Scientific Information-A Literature Review.Frontiers in psychology · 2020Review
- A Call for a Public Health Agenda for Social Media Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Influence of Enthusiastic Language on the Credibility of Health Information and the Trustworthiness of Science Communicators: Insights From a Between-Subject Web-Based Experiment.Interactive journal of medical research · 2019Article
- Observing Inter-Professional Videos: Impact of Collaboration Between Physicians and Psychologists on Attitude and Knowledge Acquisition.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Current scientific debates, such as on climate change, often involve emotional, hostile, and aggressive rhetorical styles. Those who read or listen to these kinds of scientific arguments have to decide whom they can trust and which information is credible. This study investigates how the language style (neutral vs aggressive) and the professional affiliation (scientist vs lobbyist) of a person arguing in a scientific debate influence his trustworthiness and the credibility of his information. In a 2 X 2 between-subject online experiment, participants watched a scientific debate. The results show that if the person was introduced as a lobbyist, he was perceived as less trustworthy. However, the person's professional affiliation did not affect the credibility of his information. If the person used an aggressive language style, he was perceived as less trustworthy. Furthermore, his information was perceived as less credible, and participants had the impression that they learned less from the scientific debate.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.