What if making science fun makes people take it less seriously?
Your first approach to science communication might resemble mine. My blogging started during my scientific research years as an attempt to rectify science-related misconceptions I’d encounter daily.
I understood the janitor at my research institute, with whom I used to discuss science and pseudoscience, would likely avoid any formal or dull content—he also embodied the public audience I wanted to target. The key to the public’s attention, I realized, was to keep the narrative personal, fresh, and entertaining.
We can categorize this conversational, humor-filled communication style as science infotainment. Infotainment blends entertainment and education and is exploding in popularity. Like your favorite YouTuber, it hooks audiences through three elements:
- Storytelling similar to a fictional movie or book.
- Personalization by a relatable presenter.
- Humor to increase the entertainment value.
But how do we know if science infotainment teaches, engages, and persuades its intended audience in scientific topics, such as climate change, vaccination, or artificial intelligence? According to a study comparing different narration styles’ effects on participants’ views about climate change, infotainment-styled videos sometimes weaken the message’s impact.
Researchers from New Zealand, Spain, and Kuwait investigated how audiences responded to infotainment or documentary-style (expository) narration. They examined how these styles shaped viewers’ sense of urgency about climate change and whether cultural background affected the responses.
Dr. Lloyd S. Davis and colleagues analyzed 643 participants randomly assigned to watch one of two nearly identical videos about climate change, differing only in narration style. Participants were drawn from a larger pool of 867 people who completed the survey in either English (n=418) or Spanish (n=449).
One of the videos presented a serious, formal, and knowledgeable documentary-style narration. The other video introduced the topic through conversational, humorous, and narrator-focused infotainment. After watching, participants answered questions about their perceptions of climate change’s seriousness for the planet and their personal lives.
When science infotainment undermines seriousness
The researchers identified two distinct participant groups:
Group 1: Older, university-educated individuals who were generally science-positive and watched fewer online videos.
Group 2: Younger participants with less formal education who consumed more online content but had more varied attitudes toward science.
But how did the different narration styles shape perceptions about climate change?
Participants from Group 2 exposed to the infotainment video rated climate change as less serious for the planet than Group 2 viewers of the documentary-style video, though their personal risk perceptions were unchanged. By contrast, Group 1’s ratings of climate change seriousness showed no statistically significant difference between narration styles.
The researchers also investigated the relationship between seriousness ratings based on narration styles and culture. They compared participants originating from so-called low-context and high-context cultures. Low-context cultures, such as English-speaking countries and most of Europe, emphasize the content (the what). High-context cultures, such as Spain, may emphasize where the information comes from (the who). The authors acknowledged that this binary categorization had received criticism for being simplistic, static, and outdated, but argued it could be a helpful proxy.
The team found that the type of narration significantly affected English-speaking low-context culture participants but not Spanish participants (high-context culture). Those from the English-speaking group who’d watched the documentary-style video expressed more concerns about climate change’s effect on the planet than their cultural counterparts who’d watched the infotainment video.
Rethinking our initial approach to science communication
We tend to lean towards the more laid-back, conversational content when we break into science communication. Science infotainment approaches like these keep things breezy, fun, and light-hearted. They motivate science communicators to disseminate essential knowledge because it differs from an otherwise dry, formal academic tone.
In my previous post, I argued that we should make science communication more scientific. We may find immediate success with, say, our humorous or conversational approach to science outreach inspired by our favorite YouTuber. But regardless of the immediate praise, the style can also hamper our true objectives of informing and, ultimately, improving society.
My first approach to science communication completely neglected my content’s actual effects. Sure, people seemed to enjoy my conversational style, but nothing about my approach was scientific apart from my actual content about gene editing, microbiology, and cancer. I’d never taken the time to consider the science behind science communication or the evidence supporting the best practices for public engagement. Those details were secondary to my communication—and I suspect many science communicators can recognize the approach.
The study by Davis and colleagues suggests that science infotainment videos, while helpful for popularizing science, may fail to persuade specific groups about the seriousness of scientific topics. We might eventually want to adjust our scientific communication approaches depending on our audience and communication aims.
“If it is to convey information or to engage audiences that have little science education, then an infotainment type narration might be best,” the authors concluded, “However, as shown here, if the purpose is to influence attitudes about science, then an expository-type narration is likely to be best.”
This is not to say we should stick to the results from this specific article and become more serious or formal in all our content creation. I highlight these results to trigger awareness and intention when we communicate science. Our message and intentions can benefit from occasional reassessments and adaptations, as long as they’re intentional.
What communication style do you use, and how has it evolved?
