Most Americans trust scientists, according to a 2024 Pew Research Center survey, but about half believe that scientists are not good communicators. In a recent study in the Journal of Science Communication, four communications researchers found that humor on social media correlates with a more positive public perception of science and scientists.
In an October 2020 online survey, the researchers measured the reactions of more than 2000 participants in the US to different versions of a mock Twitter (now called X) post from the fictional and gender-neutral scientist “Dr. Jamie Devon.” Each post features a cartoon about the complexity of designing AI systems that account for human behavior and error (see image). The posts use either satire, anthropomorphism, both types of humor, or no humor. Participants viewed one post and then answered questions about the post’s legitimacy as a source of information and about the fictional Devon.
Respondents rated how funny they found each post on a scale of 1 to 7. Those who viewed posts they considered funnier rated Devon as more likable and the scientific information as more legitimate than did participants who viewed posts they considered less funny. “Our research suggests that funny scientists can be well liked and still regarded as valid sources of information, at least among American audiences,” says lead author Alexandra Frank, a doctoral student at the University of Georgia’s Grady College of Journalism and Mass Communication.
Applying the findings beyond the small-scale study has limitations, write the authors. The research can’t demonstrate that humor was the reason for the better perceptions of the posts. The study also dealt with one particular topic (self-driving cars) and used lighthearted humor. Finally, Devon represents an unknown scientist rather than a public figure who could sway people’s reactions.
Coauthor Michael Cacciatore, a professor at the University of Georgia’s Grady College, says that physicists can take something away from the study. “I don't see why the same conclusions wouldn't apply with a physics pun or sprinkling in some satire or anthropomorphism in that realm,” he says.
Helen Pilcher, a science and comedy writer with a PhD in neuroscience and who was not involved with the study, says modern science communication emphasizes interacting with audiences rather than lecturing them: “Sharing a laugh with somebody, making somebody smile, is the most lovely form of interaction that you can get.”
