Persuasion in science communication
Empirical findings on scientific weblogs
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.
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
References (65)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Angler, M. W.
(
2020)
Warum
Bloggen? In
Journalistische Praxis: Science Blogging. Eine praktische
Anleitung (pp. 1–5). Springer VS.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Betsch, C.
(
2020)
How
behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis.
Nature Human
Behaviour,
4
(5).
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bleumer, H., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Till, D.
(
2019)
Narration –
Persuasion – Argumentation.
Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und
Linguistik,
49
1, 1–28.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomber, M., & Schäfer, M. S.
(Ed.) (
2017)
Forschungsfeld
Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brinker, K., Cölfen, H., & Pappert, S.
(
2014)
Linguistische
Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden (Rev.
ed.). Erich Schmidt Verlag.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H. H.
(
1992)
Arenas of language use. Chicago University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, H. H.
(
2007)
Using
Language. Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Dieckmann, W., & Paul, I.
(
1983)
„Aushandeln“
als Konzept der Konversationsanalyse. Eine wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche
Analyse.
Zeitschrift für
Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 169–196.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Frankfurt, H. G.
(
2005)
On
bullshit. Princeton University Press.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fritz, G.
(
2020)
Scientific
controversies. In
A. Leßmöllmann,
M. Dascal, &
T. Gloning (Ed.),
Science
Communication (pp. 311–334). De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gardikiotis, A., & Crano, W. D.
(
2015)
Persuasion
theories. In
International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral
Sciences (pp. 941–947). Elsevier.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ham, J.
(
2022)
Personalization
of Persuasive Robots.
Interaction Studies, in this volume.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hamimid, A.
(
2015)
The
argumentative triology: Ethos, Pathos, Logos. Looking into how to persuade.
Revue des Sciences
Humaines, 431, 45–61.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hanauska, M., & Leßmöllmann, A.
(
2018)
15.
Dialogizität im Wissenschaftsjournalismus. In
K. Birkner, &
N. Janich (Ed.),
Handbuch
Text und Gespräch (372–397). De Gruyter.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hennig, A., & Kohler, S.
(
2020)
Einflussfaktoren
bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der
Wissenschaftskommunikation.
Publizistik,
65
1, 593–615.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kahan, D. M.
(
2013)
Ideology,
Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. An Experimental Study.
Judgment and Decision
Making, 81, 407–424.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kienpointner, M.
(
1992)
Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-Holzboog.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Knape, J.
(
2013)
Persuasion. In
G. Ueding (Ed.),
Historisches
Wörterbuch der Rhetorik
Online (pp. 874–907). De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Kosta, P.
(
1995)
Zur
Modellierung persuasiver Sprechakte. In
Zeitschrift für
Slawistik, 40, 3, 305–324.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Meiler, M.
(
2018)
Eristisches
Handeln in wissenschaftlichen Weblogs. Medienlinguistische Grundlagen und
Analysen. Synchron.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mills, G. Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Chris Howes, and Vladislav Maraev
(
2022)
Influencing
laughter with AI mediated communication.
Interaction Studies, in this volume.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mouchel, C., Fortenbaugh, W., & Robling, F.
(
2013)
Ethos.
. In
G. Ueding (Ed.),
Historisches
Wörterbuch der Rhetorik
Online (pp. 1516–1543). De Gruyter.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M.
(
2003)
‘Mode
2’ revisited: The New Production of
Knowledge.
Minerva, 41 (3), 179–194.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Ortak, N.
(
2004)
Persuasion.
Zur textlinguistischen Beschreibung eines dialogischen
Strategiemusters. Niemeyer.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T.
(
1986)
The
Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion.
Advances in Experimental Social
Psychology, 191, 123–205.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Priest, S.
(
2019)
Theme
Issue. Communication and Persuasion on Energy, Environment, and
Climate. In
Science
Communication, 41 (4), 391–393.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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 logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
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](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Schönbach, K.
(
2016)
Verkaufen,
Flirten, Führen. Persuasive Kommunikation – ein
Überblick (Rev.ed.). Springer VS.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, D.
(
2010)
The
Guru Effect. In
Review of Philosophy and
Psychology, 1 (4), 583–592.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Toulmin, S.
(
1958)
The
Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Wenninger, A.
(
2019)
Digitale
Grenzkämpfe der Wissenschaft. Boundary-Work am Beispiel eines Blogportals. Springer VS.
![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Cited by (2)
Cited by 2 other publications
Moon, Hyunwoo, Beom Jun Bae & Sangwon Bae
2024.
2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC),
► pp. 728 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
Yi, Yong Jeong, Jaemin Jo, Beom Jun Bae, Hyunwoo Moon, June Yoon & Sanghyuk Lee
2024.
2024 14th International Conference on Cloud Computing, Data Science & Engineering (Confluence),
► pp. 165 ff.
![DOI logo](//benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 4 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.