Climatic Change

, Volume 138, Issue 3–4, pp 411–424 | Cite as

User comments on climate stories: impacts of anecdotal vs. scientific evidence

Article

Abstract

Stories about climate change garner passionate comments from readers, ranging from acclaim to invective. This research is the first to investigate the effects of the rhetorical strategies of deploying anecdotal versus scientific evidence in comments. A between-subjects experiment with a U.S. adult sample (N = 363) tested whether user comments that support or contradict a climate news story, using either anecdotal or scientific evidence, have an effect on message reception. Individual difference variables in audience members have been shown to moderate the effects of comments in previous research. Findings show that political ideology is an important moderator of effects, particularly on the perception of climate change risk and story credibility. And when looking at the reactions of people who have low need for cognition and are highly conservative, climate uncertainty was diminished when anecdotal evidence appeared in comments. Taken together, these findings indicate that, in the context of climate change communication, comments from users can influence whether a climate story is perceived as credible by certain readers and can also disrupt a story’s intended message, particularly if comments attempt to invoke scientific proof for their claims.

Supplementary material

10584_2016_1759_MOESM1_ESM.docx (9.3 mb)
ESM 1(DOCX 9514 kb)

References

  1. Allen M, Preiss RW, Gayle BM (2006) Meta-Analytic Examination of the Base-Rate Fallacy Communication Research Reports 23:45–51. doi:10.1080/17464090500535863 Google Scholar
  2. Amdur D, Rabe BG, Borick CP (2014) Public views on a carbon tax depend on the proposed use of revenue Issues in Energy and Environmental Policy:13Google Scholar
  3. Anderson AA, Brossard D, Scheufele DA, Xenos MA, Ladwig P (2014) The “Nasty Effect:” online incivility and risk perceptions of emerging technologies. J Comput-Mediat Commun 19:373–387. doi:10.1111/jcc4.12009
  4. Behrend TS, Sharek DJ, Meade AW, Wiebe EN (2011) The viability of crowdsourcing for survey research Behavior research methods 43:800-813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bernauer T, McGrath LF (2016) Simple reframing unlikely to boost public support for climate policy Nat Clim Chang advance online publication doi:10.1038/nclimate2948. http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nclimate2948.html - supplementary-information
  6. Block B (2010) Covering climate change World Watch: 23. Available via: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6373. Accessed 28 Jul 2016
  7. Boykoff MT (2007a) Flogging a dead norm? Newspaper coverage of anthropogenic climate change in the United States and United Kingdom from 2003 to 2006 Area 39:470–481. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4762.2007.00769.x
  8. Boykoff MT (2007b) From convergence to contention: United States mass media representations of anthropogenic climate change science Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 32:477–489. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2007.00270.x
  9. Boykoff MT, Boykoff JM (2004) Balance as bias: global warming and the US prestige press. Glob Environ Chang 14:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boykoff M, Goodman M, Curtis I (2009) Cultural politics of climate change: interactions in the spaces of the everyday, environment, politics and development. Working Paper Series. Department of Geography, King’s College LondonGoogle Scholar
  11. Braverman J (2008) Testimonials versus informational persuasive messages: The moderating effect of delivery mode and personal involvement Communication ResearchGoogle Scholar
  12. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE (1982) The need for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42:116Google Scholar
  13. Cacioppo JT, Petty RE, Kao CF, Rodriguez R (1986) Central and peripheral routes to persuasion: An individual difference perspective. J Pers Soc Psychol 51:1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Clifford S, Jewell RM, Waggoner PD (2015) Are samples drawn from Mechanical Turk valid for research on political ideology? Res Policy 2Google Scholar
  15. Collins L, Nerlich B (2015) Examining User Comments for Deliberative Democracy: A Corpus-driven. Analysis of the Climate Change Debate Online Environmental Communication 9:189–207. doi:10.1080/17524032.2014.981560 Google Scholar
  16. Corner A, Whitmarsh L, Xenias D (2012) Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation. Clim Chang 114:463–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dahlstrom MF (2014) Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 111:13614–13620Google Scholar
  18. Dahlstrom MF, Ho SS (2012) Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate Science Science Communication. doi:10.1177/1075547012454597
  19. Dahlstrom M, Ritland R (2012) The problem of communicating beyond human scale Between Scientists and Citizens:121–130Google Scholar
  20. Ding D, Maibach EW, Zhao X, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Support for climate policy and societal action are linked to perceptions about scientific agreement Nature Clim Change 1:462–466Google Scholar
  21. Downs JS (2014) Prescriptive scientific narratives for communicating usable science Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111:13627–13633. doi:10.1073/pnas.1317502111
  22. Doyle J (2011) Mediating climate change. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
  23. EPA (2011) Our nation’s air: status and trends through 2010. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,. Research Triangle Park, NCGoogle Scholar
  24. Feldman L, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Leiserowitz A (2011) Climate on Cable: The Nature and Impact of Global Warming Coverage on Fox News. CNN, and MSNBC The International Journal of Press/Politics. doi:10.1177/1940161211425410 Google Scholar
  25. Fico F, Freedman E (2004) Bureau, wire reporters write more balanced stories. Newsp Res J 25:-44Google Scholar
  26. Gelbspan R (2005) Disinformation, financial pressures, and misplaced balance. Nieman Reports 59:77Google Scholar
  27. Gillis J (2013) Climate Panel Cites Near Certainty on Warming. New York CityGoogle Scholar
  28. Greene K, Campo S, Banerjee SC (2010) Comparing Normative. Anecdotal, and Statistical Risk Evidence to Discourage Tanning Bed Use Communication Quarterly 58:111–132. doi:10.1080/01463371003773366 Google Scholar
  29. Hayes AF (2013) PROCESS: A versatile computational tool for observed variable mediation, moderation, and conditional process modeling. 2012 Acesso em 2Google Scholar
  30. Hermida A, Thurman N (2008) A clash of cultures: The integration of user-generated content within professional journalistic frameworks at British newspaper websites. Journal Pract 2:343–356Google Scholar
  31. Hiles SS, Hinnant A (2014) Climate Change in the Newsroom: Journalists’ Evolving Standards of Objectivity When Covering Global Warming Science Communication 36:428–453. doi:10.1177/1075547014534077 Google Scholar
  32. Hinnant A (2009) The cancer on your coffee table: A discourse analysis of the health content in mass-circulated women’s magazines. Feminist Media Studies 9:317–333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hinnant A, Len-Ríos ME, Young R (2012) Journalistic use of exemplars to humanize health news. Journal Stud 14:539–554. doi:10.1080/1461670X.2012.721633
  34. Hornikx J (2005) A review of experimental research on the relative persuasiveness of anecdotal, statistical, causal, and expert evidence. Studies in Communication Sciences 5:205–216Google Scholar
  35. Jones MD (2014) Communicating Climate Change: Are Stories Better than “Just the Facts”? Policy Studies Journal 42:644–673. doi:10.1111/psj.12072 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kareklas I, Muehling DD, Weber TJ (2015) Reexamining Health Messages in the Digital Age: A Fresh Look at Source Credibility Effects Journal of Advertising 44:88-104. doi:10.1080/00913367.2015.1018461 Google Scholar
  37. Kata A (2012) Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm-An overview of tactics and tropes used online by the anti-vaccination movement Vaccine 30:3778–3789Google Scholar
  38. Kelly RP, Cooley SR, Klinger T (2014) Narratives can motivate environmental action: The Whiskey Creek ocean acidification story. Ambio 43:592–599CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kim E-M, Sun Y-H (2006) The effect of replies in Internet news on the audience Korean. Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies 50:33–64Google Scholar
  40. Kim S-Y et al. (2012) Testing an additive model for the effectiveness of evidence on the persuasiveness of a message. Soc Influ 7:65–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knobloch-Westerwick S, Johnson BK, Silver NA, Westerwick A (2015) Science Exemplars in the Eye of the Beholder: How Exposure to Online Science Information Affects Attitudes Science Communication 37:575–601. doi:10.1177/1075547015596367 Google Scholar
  42. Koteyko N, Jaspal R, Nerlich B (2013) Climate change and ‘climategate’ in online reader comments: a mixed methods study. Geogr J 179:74–86. doi:10.1111/j.1475-4959.2012.00479.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Kreuter M, Melanie G, Joseph C, Michael S, Meg W, Doug S, Eddie C (2007) Ann Behav Med 33:221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Krupnikov Y, Levine AS (2014) Cross-Sample Comparisons and External Validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1:59–80. doi:10.1017/xps.2014.7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Lee JS, Sung M (2007) The effects of reading replies on the perception of online news articles: Focusing on the PR perspective. Korean Journal of Advertising and Public Relations 9:7–45Google Scholar
  46. Lee E-J, Jang YJ (2010) What do others’ reactions to news on internet portal sites tell us? Effects of presentation format and readers’ need for cognition on reality perception Communication Research 37:825–846Google Scholar
  47. Leiserowitz A (2006) Climate Change Risk Perception and Policy Preferences: The Role of Affect. Imagery, and Values Climatic Change 77:45–72. doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9059-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Leiserowitz A, Maibach EW, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Howe P (2013) Climate Change in the American Mind: Americans’ Global Warming Beliefs and Attitudes in April 2013 Available at SSRN 2298705Google Scholar
  49. Maibach EW, Nisbet M, Baldwin P, Akerlof K, Diao G (2010) Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health 10:299. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
  50. Marx SM, Weber EU, Orlove BS, Leiserowitz A, Krantz DH, Roncoli C, Phillips J (2007) Communication and mental processes: Experiential and analytic processing of uncertain climate information. Glob Environ Chang 17:47–58. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.10.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mayo J, Leshner G (2000) Assessing the credibility of computer-assisted reporting. Newsp Res J 21:68–82Google Scholar
  52. Meyer P (1988) Defining and measuring credibility of newspapers: Developing an index. J Mass Commun Q 65:567–574Google Scholar
  53. Morton TA, Rabinovich A, Marshall D, Bretschneider P (2011) The future that may (or may not) come: How framing changes responses to uncertainty in climate change communications. Glob Environ Chang 21:103–109. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Moser SC, Dilling L (2011) Communicating climate change: closing the science-action gap The oxford handbook of climate change and society. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 161–174Google Scholar
  55. Myers TA, Nisbet MC, Maibach EW, Leiserowitz AA (2012) A public health frame arouses hopeful emotions about climate change. Clim Chang 113:1105–1112. doi:10.1007/s10584-012-0513-6 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Newman C (2007) Reader letters to women’s health magazines. Feminist Media Studies 7:155–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Nisbet MC (2009) Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement Environment. Science and Policy for Sustainable Development 51:12–23. doi:10.3200/envt.51.2.12-23 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. O’Connor RE, Bard RJ, Fisher A (1999) Risk Perceptions. General Environmental Beliefs, and Willingness to Address Climate Change Risk Analysis 19:461–471. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.1999.tb00421.x Google Scholar
  59. Olausson U (2009) Global warming—global responsibility? Media frames of collective action and scientific certainty Public Understanding of Science 18:421–436. doi:10.1177/0963662507081242 Google Scholar
  60. Painter J (2013) Climate change in the media: Reporting risk and uncertainty. IB Tauris,Google Scholar
  61. Painter J (2015) Taking a bet on risk Nature. Climate Change 5:286–288. doi:10.1038/nclimate2542 Google Scholar
  62. Paolacci G, Chandler J, Ipeirotis P (2010) Running experiments on Amazon mechanical turk. Judgm Decis Mak 5:411–419Google Scholar
  63. Peter C, Rossmann C, Keyling T (2014) Exemplification 2.0: Roles of direct and indirect social information in conveying health messages through social network sites Journal of Media Psychology: Theories. Meteorol Appl 26:19–28. doi:10.1027/1864-1105/a000103 Google Scholar
  64. Petrovic N, Madrigano J, Zaval L (2014) Motivating mitigation: when health matters more than climate change. Climatic Change 126:245–254. doi:10.1007/s10584-014-1192-2
  65. Petty RE, Cacioppo JT, Goldman R (1981) Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol 41:847Google Scholar
  66. Rand DG (2012) The promise of Mechanical Turk: How online labor markets can help theorists run behavioral experiments. J Theor Biol 299:172–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Reader B (2012) Free press vs. free speech? The rhetoric of “civility” in regard to anonymous online comments. J Mass Commun Q 89:495–513Google Scholar
  68. Retzbach A, Maier M (2015) Communicating Scientific Uncertainty: Media Effects on Public Engagement With Science Communication Research 42:429–456. doi:10.1177/0093650214534967 Google Scholar
  69. Rose N (2001) The politics of life itself Theory. Cult Sociol 18:1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Saad L (2014) A steady 57 % in U.S. Blame Humans for Global Warming. Gallup Politics,Google Scholar
  71. Santana AD (2014) Virtuous or vitriolic: The effect of anonymity on civility in online newspaper reader comment boards. Journal Pract 8:18–33Google Scholar
  72. Scannell L, Gifford R (2013) Personally Relevant Climate Change: The Role of Place Attachment and Local Versus Global Message Framing in Engagement. Environ Behav 45:60–85. doi:10.1177/0013916511421196 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Secko DM, Tlalka S, Dunlop M, Kingdon A, Amend E (2011) The unfinished science story: Journalist-audience interactions from the Globe and Mail’s online health and science sections. Journalism 12:814–831CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Smith N, Leiserowitz A (2012) The Rise of Global Warming Skepticism: Exploring Affective Image Associations in the United States Over Time Risk Analysis 32:1021–1032. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01801.x Google Scholar
  75. Spence A, Pidgeon N (2010) Framing and communicating climate change: The effects of distance and outcome frame manipulations. Glob Environ Chang 20:656–667. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Spence A, Poortinga W, Pidgeon N (2012) The psychological distance of climate change. Risk Anal 32:957–972Google Scholar
  77. Straubhaar J, LaRose R, Davenport L (2013) Media now: Understanding media, culture, and technology. Cengage Learning,Google Scholar
  78. Thompson S (2012) The micro-ethics of everyday life: ethics, ideology and anti-consumerism. Cult Stud 26:895–921CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Uldam J, Askanius T (2013) Online Civic Cultures? Debating Climate Change Activism on YouTube International Journal of Communication 7:1185–1204Google Scholar
  80. Weber EU (2010) What shapes perceptions of climate change? Wiley Interdiscip Rev Clim Chang 1:332–342. doi:10.1002/wcc.41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Webster M (2003) Communicating Climate Change Uncertainty to Policy-Makers and the Public Climatic Change 61:1–8. doi:10.1023/a:1026351131038 Google Scholar
  82. Whitmarsh L (2011) Scepticism and uncertainty about climate change: dimensions, determinants and change over time. Glob Environ Chang 21:690–700CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Wiest SL, Raymond L, Clawson RA (2015) Framing, partisan predispositions, and public opinion on climate change. Glob Environ Chang 31:187–198. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Winter S, Brückner C, Krämer NC (2015) They came, they liked, they commented: Social influence on Facebook news channels Cyberpsychology. Behavior, and Social Networking 18:431–436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zebregs S, van den Putte B, Neijens P, de Graaf A (2014) The Differential Impact of Statistical and Narrative Evidence on Beliefs, Attitude, and Intention. A Meta-Analysis Health Commun:1–8. doi:10.1080/10410236.2013.842528
  86. Zehr SC (2000) Public representations of scientific uncertainty about global climate change. Public Underst Sci 9:85–103. doi:10.1088/0963-6625/9/2/301 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zillmann D (1999) Exemplification theory: Judging the whole by some of its parts. Z Med Psychol 1:69–94. doi:10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zillmann D (2002) Exemplification theory of media influence. In: Bryant J, Zillmann D, Oliver MB (eds) Media effects: Advances in theory and research (2nd ed.). LEA’s communication series. Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, pp 19–41Google Scholar
  89. Zillmann D, Brosius HB (2012) Exemplification in communication: The influence of case reports on the perception of issues. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  90. Zillmann D, Gibson R, Sundar SS, Perkins JW (1996) Effects of exemplification in news reports on the perception of social issues Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 73:427–444Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Missouri ColumbiaColumbiaUSA
  2. 2.University of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations