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

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Persuasion in science communication

Empirical findings on scientific weblogs

 | Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruhe
 | Karlsruhe Institute of TechnologyKarlsruhe
Published online: 28 March 2022
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.00008.han
Abstract
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)
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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Angler, M. W. (2020). Warum Bloggen? In Journalistische Praxis: Science Blogging. Eine praktische Anleitung (pp. 1–5). Springer VS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Betsch, C. (2020). How behavioural science data helps mitigate the COVID-19 crisis. Nature Human Behaviour, 4 (5). Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bleumer, H., Hannken-Illjes, K., & Till, D. (2019). Narration – Persuasion – Argumentation. Zeitschrift für Literaturwissenschaft und Linguistik, 491, 1–28. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bonfadelli, H., Fähnrich, B., Lüthje, C., Milde, J., Rhomber, M., & Schäfer, M. S. (Ed.), (2017). Forschungsfeld Wissenschaftskommunikation. Springer VS. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brinker, K., Cölfen, H., & Pappert, S. (2014). Linguistische Textanalyse. Eine Einführung in Grundbegriffe und Methoden (Rev. ed.). Erich Schmidt Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1992). Arenas of language use. Chicago University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2007). Using Language. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dieckmann, W., & Paul, I. (1983). „Aushandeln“ als Konzept der Konversationsanalyse. Eine wort- und begriffsgeschichtliche Analyse. Zeitschrift für Sprachwissenschaft, 21, 169–196. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Frankfurt, H. G. (2005). On bullshit. Princeton University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fritz, G. (2020). Scientific controversies. In A. Leßmöllmann, M. Dascal, & T. Gloning (Ed.), Science Communication (pp. 311–334). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gardikiotis, A., & Crano, W. D. (2015). Persuasion theories. In International Encyclopedia of Social and Behavioral Sciences (pp. 941–947). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ham, J. (2022). Personalization of Persuasive Robots. Interaction Studies, in this volume.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. 11. Halbband (pp. 507–523). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to 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). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hennig, A., & Kohler, S. (2020). Einflussfaktoren bei der Social-Media-Nutzung in der Wissenschaftskommunikation. Publizistik, 651, 593–615. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. An Experimental Study. Judgment and Decision Making, 81, 407–424.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Kienpointner, M. (1992). Alltagslogik. Struktur und Funktion von Argumentationsmustern. Frommann-Holzboog.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Persuasion. In G. Ueding (Ed.), Historisches Wörterbuch der Rhetorik Online (pp. 874–907). De Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kosta, P. (1995). Zur Modellierung persuasiver Sprechakte. In Zeitschrift für Slawistik, 40, 3, 305–324. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meiler, M. (2018). Eristisches Handeln in wissenschaftlichen Weblogs. Medienlinguistische Grundlagen und Analysen. Synchron.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mills, G. Eleni Gregoromichelaki, Chris Howes, and Vladislav Maraev (2022). Influencing laughter with AI mediated communication. Interaction Studies, in this volume. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nowotny, H., Scott, P., & Gibbons, M. (2003). ‘Mode 2’ revisited: The New Production of Knowledge. Minerva, 41 (3), 179–194. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ortak, N. (2004). Persuasion. Zur textlinguistischen Beschreibung eines dialogischen Strategiemusters. Niemeyer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 191, 123–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Priest, S. (2019). Theme Issue. Communication and Persuasion on Energy, Environment, and Climate. In Science Communication, 41 (4), 391–393. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Schönbach, K. (2016). Verkaufen, Flirten, Führen. Persuasive Kommunikation – ein Überblick (Rev.ed.). Springer VS. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. (2010). The Guru Effect. In Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 1 (4), 583–592. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wenninger, A. (2019). Digitale Grenzkämpfe der Wissenschaft. Boundary-Work am Beispiel eines Blogportals. Springer VS. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Muir, Kate, Nigel Dewdney, Faye Walker & Adam Joinson
2025. Social Influence across conversational contexts: a new taxonomy of social influence techniques and public understanding of the characteristics of persuasion, manipulation, and coercion in interpersonal dialogue. Social Influence 20:1 DOI logo
Ochsner, Catharina, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting & Laura Rothfritz
2025. Wissenschaftsblogs in Deutschland: Eine Analyse infrastruktureller Aspekte. Bibliothek Forschung und Praxis 49:3 ► pp. 417 ff. DOI logo
Ochsner, Catharina, Heinz Pampel, Jonas Höfting & Laura Rothfritz
2025. Scholarly blogs: an analysis of infrastructural aspects based on German scholarly blogs. Journal of Documentation 81:7 ► pp. 520 ff. DOI logo
Moon, Hyunwoo, Beom Jun Bae & Sangwon Bae
2024. 2024 International Conference on Artificial Intelligence in Information and Communication (ICAIIC), ► pp. 728 ff. DOI logo
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

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 march 2026. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue