Researchers suggest humor can be a powerful communication strategy—it draws attention, improves source likability, and supports fact retention. Used ethically, humor can play a key role in a broader fight against science misinformation.
Misinformation in public debates about scientific issues such as vaccinations and climate change can be found all over the internet, especially on social media. In a new study, Sara K. Yeo, associate professor of communication at the University of Utah, examines why it’s so difficult to detect science misinformation and suggests that using humor may help combat the issue.
In the article, published in Proceedings of National Academics of Sciences, Yeo and her colleague Meaghan McKasy, assistant professor of communication at Utah Valley University, argue that limited science and media literacy combined with structural constraints such as fewer science journalists and a decreasing number of local newspapers, curtail the ability to discern fact from falsehood. Readers also tend to use mental shortcuts—shaped from political ideology, religious values, and unconscious bias—to sift through the deluge of information, which can further complicate the ability to identify false news.
“Misinformation is often packaged or framed in simplistic and emotional ways,” said Yeo. “Consider online ‘clickbait’ as an example: Such content often has captivating titles that promote seemingly scandalous information. This encourages the use of mental shortcuts, which can make detecting and parsing falsehoods a challenge.”
Humor as a Potential Countermeasure
According to Yeo and McKasy, the strong emotions that arise from clickbait can impair one’s ability to process information rationally, but the effect of emotions on the detection and acceptance of misinformation is not straightforward. However, advances in research on emotion and relatedly, humor, in science communication reveal how they can be used as strategies to address the problem.
Humor is ubiquitous in daily life and human communication. Science is no exception – science jokes abound online under hashtags such as #overlyhonestmethods and #fieldworkfail. In an era of misinformation, humor has the potential to be a defense against fake news, but according to Yeo and McKasy, there needs to be a better understanding of how humor influences attitudes toward science.
“Funny science can draw attention to issues that might not be on the public’s agenda and may even help direct attention to valuable and accurate information embedded within a joke. Humor also impacts how we process information about science to form attitudes and behavioral intentions.”
Boosting Credibility Through Relatable Messaging
Further, humor is linked to people’s evaluations of an information source and it can humanize and make a source more likable. Yeo’s recent research shows that scientists who use humor are perceived as more likable yet retain their credibility as an expert.
According to their article, Yeo and McKasy believe there isn’t a single or simple solution to the problem of science misinformation, however, they believe the best and most realistic approach is to use multiple strategies together.
“Understanding how emotion and humor shape the public’s understanding of science is one more resource that can aid communicators’ efforts to combat misinformation. Of course, strategies must be used ethically and how best practices are translated from research depends on the communication goals. It is essential that we engage in dialogue about the ethical considerations that face science communication in the digital media era.”
Reference: “Emotion and humor as misinformation antidotes” by Sara K. Yeo and Meaghan McKasy, 9 April 2021, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2002484118
Never miss a breakthrough: Join the SciTechDaily newsletter.
Follow us on Google and Google News.
2 Comments
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The problem is larger than fake news consumed by those who are science illiterates. Science advances through the replacement of former paradigms. Often times, what is judged by an ‘expert’ to be fake or wrong is judged on the basis of the prevailing paradigm. Peer review is supposed to be a crucial part of the Scientific Method, whereby new ideas can be scrutinized by experts in a particular discipline. However, publishing is a lucrative business and publishers are sensitive to maintaining a high reputation. Therefore, they tend to be conservative about new ideas that go against the prevailing paradigms. Additionally, ideologues and zealots who are tasked with being gatekeepers for ‘peer reviewed’ science journals have been known to not recommend publication for researchers that come to different conclusions than what the publisher’s reviewers hold.
Those who complain about contrary viewpoints on things like COVID-19 or climate change, need a little humility and should judge based on the facts and logic presented, not on whether it goes against their personal beliefs.
Having said that, I acknowledge that social media is often haunted by uneducated, unethical trolls who care not for the truth, but are attempting to promote their personal beliefs. Interestingly, many online blogs and news sources discourage links to other information (analogous to the formerly required footnotes and references in written work), and some have even recently ‘temporarily’ suspended reader comments. There is an old saying that “There are always two sides to a story;” only presenting one side is basically presenting a half-truth.
Humor is always a welcome relief — unless it is your ox that is being gored!
… well one need to take science as a misinformation, otherwise there would be no progress, after all…