Cover not available
Article published In:
What Influences Influence? How the Communicative Situation Influences Persuasion
Edited by Kerstin Fischer and Jaap Ham
[Interaction Studies 22:3] 2021
► pp. 343–372

Persuasion in science communication

Empirical findings on scientific weblogs

| Karlsruhe Institute of Technology
| Karlsruhe Institute of Technology

Science communication has gained high importance in the current knowledge and risk society. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of qualitative studies on how non-experts and experts engage in opinionated scientific debates and which linguistic devices they use to gain influence on other people’s attitudes toward a scientific issue.

In our study, we examine dialogical modes of science communication (i.e. weblogs) used by bloggers and audiences to engage into opinionated discourse about scientific endeavors. As those exchanges easily lead to controversies between different points of views, stances and attitudes, we focus from a rhetorically-driven linguistic perspective on devices to persuade the other participants and readers and to control the discourse. Hence, we ask which linguistic instruments are used to gain influence on influence. The aim of our study is to get deeper insights into the persuasive strategies mainly used in those forms of external science communication.

Keywords: persuasion, science communication, rhetoric, ethos, logos, pathos, dialogue analysis, science blogposts
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Persuasion in science communication
    • 2.1Persuasion
    • 2.2Persuasion in science communication
  • 3.Informal science communication: Popular science blogs
  • 4.Persuasive communication in science blogs
    • 4.1The sample
    • 4.2Analysis: Detecting persuasive intentions in blog posts
    • 4.3Analysis: Persuasion in the comment section
      • 4.3.1Logos-based devices
      • 4.3.2Pathos-based devices
      • 4.3.3Ethos-based devices
  • 5.Results
  • 6.Discussion
  • Acknowlegdements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 28 March 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00008.han
References
Anderson, A. A., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M., & Ladwig, P.
(2014) The “Nasty Effect”: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 19 (3), 373–387. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Angler, M. W.
(2020) Warum Bloggen? In Journalistische Praxis: Science Blogging. Eine praktische Anleitung (pp. 1–5). Springer VS.Google Scholar
Betsch, C.
(2020) How behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (5). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bilandzic, H., & Busselle, R.
(2013) Narrative Persuasion. In J. P. Dillard, & L. Shen, The SAGE handbook of persuasion. Developments in theory and practice (pp. 200–219). Sage.Google Scholar
Bleumer, H., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Till, D.
(2019) Narration – Persuasion – Argumentation. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 49 1, 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomber, M., & Schäfer, M. S.
(Ed.) (2017) Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinker, K., Cölfen, H., & Pappert, S.
(2014) Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden (Rev. ed.). Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar
Chow, K. N.
(2022) The Influence of Repeated Interactions on the Persuasiveness of Simulation: A Case Study on Smoking Reduction. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H.
(1992) Arenas of language use. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
(2007) Using Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, W., & Paul, I.
(1983) „Aushandeln“ als Konzept der Konversationsanalyse. Eine wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Analyse. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 169–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Eggs, E.
(2000) Vertextungsmuster Argumentation. Logische Grundlagen. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Vertextungsmuster Narration. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp. 397–414). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ehlich, K.
(2014) Argumentieren als sprachliche Ressource des diskursiven Lernens. In A. Hornung, G. Carobbio, & D. Sorrentino (Ed.), Diskursive und textuelle Strukturen in der Hochschuldidaktik. Deutsch und Italienisch im Vergleich (pp. 41–54). Waxmann.Google Scholar
Fischer, K., Jensen, L. C., & Zitzmann, N.
(2022) In the same boat: The Influence of Sharing the Situational Context on a Speaker’s (a Robot’s) Persuasiveness. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Fischer, L.
(2012) Wissenschaftsblogs – Kulturraum mit eigenen Regeln. In B. Dernbach, C. Kleinert, & H. Münder (Ed.), Handbuch Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 259–266). VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fix, U., Gardt, A., & Knape, J.
(2008) Einleitung. In Rhetorik und Stilistik. Ein internationales Handbuch historischer und systematischer Forschung (pp. v–xv). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G.
(2005) On bullshit. Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fritz, G.
(2020) Scientific controversies. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp. 311–334). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Gardikiotis, A., & Crano, W. D.
(2015) Persuasion theories. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 941–947). Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gottschling, M., & Kramer, O.
(2021) Recontextualized Knowledge. Introduction: A Rhetorical View on Science Communication. In Recontextualized Knowledge. Rhetoric – Situation – Science Communication (pp. 1–14). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Grabe, M. E., & Ozen, B.
(2021) Reconsidering Informed and Participatory Citizenship in the Current Media Ecosystem. In S. Coen, & P. Bull (Ed.), The Psychology of Journalism (pp. 87–110). Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E., & Hausendorf, H.
(2000) 37. Vertextungsmuster Narration. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp. 369–385). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ham, J.
(2022) Personalization of Persuasive Robots. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Hamimid, A.
(2015) The argumentative triology: Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Looking into how to persuade. Revue des Sciences Humaines, 431, 45–61.Google Scholar
Hanauska, M., & Leßmöllmann, A.
(2018) 15. Dialogizität im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In K. Birkner, & N. Janich (Ed.), Handbuch Text und Gespräch (372–397). De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hart Sol, P., & Nisbet, E. C.
(2011) Boomerang Effects in Science Communication. How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies. Communication Research 391, 701–723. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heinemann, W.
(2000) Textsorte – Textmuster – Texttyp. In Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1 1. Halbband (pp. 507–523). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Hendriks, F., Kienhues, D., & Bromme, R.
(2015) Measuring Laypeople’s Trust in Experts in a Digital Age: The Muenster Epistemic Trustworthiness Inventory. PLoS One, 10 (10). DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hennig, A., & Kohler, S.
(2020) Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Publizistik, 65 1, 593–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hornsey, M. J.
(2020) Why Facts Are Not Enough. Understanding and Managing the Motivated Rejection of Science. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 291, 583–591. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackob, N.
(2007) Die aristotelische Rhetorik als Theorie persuasiver Kommunikation – Zur kommunikationswissenschaftlichen Kontinuität zwischen antiker und moderner Persuasionsforschung. In T. Roessing (Ed.), Politik und Kommunikation – interdisziplinär betrachtet (pp. 117–142). Nomos. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jahr, S.
(2000) 38. Vertextungsmuster Explikation. In K. Brinker, G. Antos, W. Heinemann, & S. F. Sager (Ed.), Text- und Gesprächslinguistik. Ein internationales Handbuch zeitgenössischer Forschung = Linguistics of text and conversation: an international handbook of contemporary research. 1. Halbband (pp. 385–397). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Jarreau, P.
(2015) All the Science That Is Fit to Blog. An Analysis of Science Blogging Practices. Dissertation. Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College.
José Luzón, M.
(2012) Comments in Academic Blogs as a New Form of Scholarly Interaction. In C. Berkenkotter, V. K. Bhatia, & M. Gotti (Ed.) Insights into Academic Genres (pp. 281–300). Peter Lang CH.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M.
(2013) Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. An Experimental Study. Judgment and Decision Making, 81, 407–424.Google Scholar
Kallmeyer, W.
(1981) Aushandlung und Bedeutungskonstitution. In P. Schröder, & H. Steger (Ed.), Dialogforschung. Jahrbuch 1980 des Instituts für deutsche Sprache (pp. 89–127). Schwann.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M.
(1992) Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar
Knape, J.
(1998) Zwangloser Zwang. Der Persuasionsprozeß als Grundlage sozialer Bindung. In G. Ueding, & T. Vogel, Von der Kunst der Rede und Beredsamkeit (pp. 54–69). Attempto.Google Scholar
(2013) Persuasion. In G. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Online (pp. 874–907). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kosta, P.
(1995) Zur Modellierung persuasiver Sprechakte. In Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 40, 3, 305–324. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kramer, O.
(2020) Spiel mit dem Publikum. Zur Rhetorik des Science-Slams. In P. Niemann, L. Bittner, C. Hauser, & P. Schrögel (Ed.), Science-Slam. Multidisziplinäre Perspektiven auf eine populäre Form der Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 53–67). Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Langedijk, R., & Ham, J.
(2022) More Than Advice: The Influence of Adding References to Prior Discourse and Signals of Empathy on the Persuasiveness of an Advice-Giving Robot. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Latour, B.
(2004) Why Has Critique Run out of Steam? From Matters of Fact to Matters of Concern. In Critical Inquiry, 30 (2), 225–248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leßmöllmann, A.
(2020) Current trends and future visions of (research on) science communication. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp. 657–688). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lobin, H.
(2017) Aktuelle und künftige technische Rahmenbedingungen digitaler Medien für die Wissenschaftskommunikation. In P. Wingart, H. Wormer, A. Wenninger, R. F. Hüttl (Ed.), Perspektiven der Wissenschaftskommunikation im digitalen Zeitalter (pp. 221–258). Velbrück Wissenschaft. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luong, K. T., Garrett, R. K., & Slater, M. D.
(2019) Promoting Persuasion With Ideologically Tailored Science Messages. A Novel Approach to Research on Emphasis Framing. Science Communication, 41 (4), 488–515. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lüthje, C.
(2017) Interne informelle Wissenschaftskommunikation. In H. Bonfadelli, B. Fähnrich, C. Lüthje, J. Milde, M. Rhomber, M. S. Schäfer (Ed.), Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation (pp. 109–124). Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mahrt, M., & Puschmann, C.
(2014) Science blogging: an exploratory study of motives, styles, and audience reactions. Journal of Science Communication, 13 (3), 1–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. S., Summerville, A., & Wickline, V. B.
(2017) Persuasion and Pragmatics. An Empirical Test of the Guru Effect Model. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 8 (2), 219–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meiler, M.
(2018) Eristisches Handeln in wissenschaftlichen Weblogs. Medienlinguistische Grundlagen und Analysen. Synchron.Google Scholar
Mills, G. Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Chris Howes, and Vladislav Maraev
(2022) Influencing laughter with AI mediated communication. Interaction Studies, in this volume. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mouchel, C., Fortenbaugh, W., & Robling, F.
(2013) Ethos. . In G. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Online (pp. 1516–1543). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Niebuhr, O., & Silber-Varod, V.
(2022) How versatility performance influences perception of charismatic speech – A study on two Israeli politicians. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M.
(2003) ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41 (3), 179–194. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Oreskes, N., & Conway, E. M.
(2010) Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Ortak, N.
(2004) Persuasion. Zur textlinguistischen Beschreibung eines dialogischen Strategiemusters. Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(1986) The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 191, 123–205. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Priest, S.
(2019) Theme Issue. Communication and Persuasion on Energy, Environment, and Climate. In Science Communication, 41 (4), 391–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rex, B. T.
(2008) Persuasion. Die Kunst der Überzeugung. In V. Bazil, & R. Wöller (Ed.), Rede als Führungsinstrument. Wirtschaftsrhetorik für Manager – ein Leitfaden (pp. 141–156). Betriebswirtschaftlicher Verlag Dr. Th. Gabler / GWV Fachverlage GmbH Wiesbaden. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schäfer, M. S., & Metag, J.
(2021) Audiences of science communication between pluralization, fragmentation and polarization. In M. Bucchi, & B. Trench (Ed.), Routledge Handbook of Public Communication about Science and Technology. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid-Petri, H., & Bürger, M.
(2020) 5. Modeling science communication. From linear to more complex models. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp. 105–122). De Gruyter.Google Scholar
Schönbach, K.
(2016) Verkaufen, Flirten, Führen. Persuasive Kommunikation – ein Überblick (Rev.ed.). Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D.
(2010) The Guru Effect. In Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1 (4), 583–592. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Toulmin, S.
(1958) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wenninger, A.
(2019) Digitale Grenzkämpfe der Wissenschaft. Boundary-Work am Beispiel eines Blogportals. Springer VS. DOI logoGoogle Scholar