Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41273202›Full record

ArticlePublic understanding of science (Bristol, England)2026

'A fiction author can do anything, we're bound by the facts': The risks and opportunities of taking advantage of cognitive biases in storytelling for science communication.

Hannah Little, Juliet Dunstone

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public understanding of science (Bristol, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hannah LittleUniversity of Liverpool, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6367-8845
Juliet DunstoneUniversity of Liverpool, UK; University of Stirling, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7151-6184

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Storytelling is a growing topic in science communication research, highlighting the importance of learning from existing storytelling research from other disciplines. Storytelling research in cultural evolution has identified a number of cognitive biases in how we transmit information: stories are remembered and passed on more faithfully when they contain social and survival information, negative information or counterintuitive information. In this article, we review this cultural evolution literature and present findings from a set of interviews with science communication professionals. We asked science communicators about the potential benefits and risks that may come about when using cognitive biases within science communication storytelling. Science communicators reported already using some cognitive biases in their practice. Participants also expressed concerns about some tactics that might contradict objectives of science communication, threaten the integrity of science and science communication and risk the welfare of audiences. We map the benefits and risks reported using a thematic analysis.

Indexed as

CognitionCommunicationNarrationScienceCultural EvolutionHumanscognitive sciencecultural evolutionscience communicationstorytelling

Identifiers

PMID41273202
PMCPMC12999997

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.