February 18, 2013 9:52 am
Trolls Are Ruining Science Journalism
Image: Cali4beach
Anyone who’s spent any time on the internet is familiar with trolls. From politics to sports to science, trolls take pleasure in bashing a story from every possible angle. Science is no exception, and recent research shows that when it comes to science news, the trolls are winning.
The University of Wisconsin reports on a recent study that tried to quantify just how much of an impact trolls could have on a reader. Basically, the researchers showed comments on a blog post about nanotechnology to study participants. They surveyed their users pre-existing ideas about nanotechnology and measured how those ideas might change based on the blog and the comments beneath it. What they found was that negative comments, regardless of their merit, could sway readers. The University of Wisconsin writes:
For rapidly developing nanotechnology, a technology already built into more than 1,300 consumer products, exposure to uncivil online comments is one of several variables that can directly influence the perception of risk associated with it.
“When people encounter an unfamiliar issue like nanotechnology, they often rely on an existing value such as religiosity or deference to science to form a judgment,” explains Ashley Anderson, a postdoctoral fellow in the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University and the lead author of the upcoming study in the Journal of Computer Mediated Communication.
At Mother Jones, Chris Mooney puts it this way:
The researchers were trying to find out what effect exposure to such rudeness had on public perceptions of nanotech risks. They found that it wasn’t a good one. Rather, it polarized the audience: Those who already thought nanorisks were low tended to become more sure of themselves when exposed to name-calling, while those who thought nanorisks are high were more likely to move in their own favored direction. In other words, it appeared that pushing people’s emotional buttons, through derogatory comments, made them double down on their preexisting beliefs.
In the context of the psychological theory of motivated reasoning, this makes a great deal of sense. Based on pretty indisputable observations about how the brain works, the theory notes that people feel first, and think second. The emotions come faster than the “rational” thoughts—and also shape the retrieval of those thoughts from memory. Therefore, if reading insults activates one’s emotions, the “thinking” process may be more likely to be defensive in nature, and focused on preserving one’s identity and preexisting beliefs.
So without a background in nanotechnology—or whatever other subject you might be reading about—an emotionally charged comment is going to trigger your brain to act far before a logical explanation of how something works. And emotionally charged comments are a troll’s weapon of choice.
More from Smithsonian.com:
Fun Places on the Internet (in 1995)
How Technology Makes Us Better Social Beings
Sign up for our free email newsletter and receive the best stories from Smithsonian.com each week.
15 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
What are some strategies for compensating or adapting to this while reading, discussing, thinking about new concepts, etc.? And does motivated reasoning have some relationship to anasognosia?
Comment by aek — February 18, 2013 @ 12:34 pm
A well written science piece would state the methodolgy of the study. How many samples were used ? Has the study been peer reviewed? Has it been replicated? Without the latter two stating the conclusion as factual is not sound scientific reasoning. Thus the headline is opinion not science reporting
Comment by Samba — February 18, 2013 @ 1:08 pm
May we have a little clarity on the term “emotionally charged comment”? That is to ask, under the rules of predicate logic is there a normative guideline wrapping the decision procedures which outline sets of meaningful statements such that the properties to which they correspond are reliably deduced?
What is the intensional scope of such a term “comment”? Does it include new departures, dialectical gestures, rhetoric appropriation, Nietzschean grand-standing or Voltaire-ish clamor, the clanging of Sturm und Drang or the metaphysical, systematically perilish pessimistic corridors of Kafka or Bukowski?
How many economic disasters does it take before we too explain away dissent?
Comment by nerdfiles — February 18, 2013 @ 1:23 pm
Just make sure to include a statement in gray text on a white background at the end of the commenting section to say “your comment will only appear once approved by our moderators.”
That way you can just approve the comments that agree with what is being said, bolstering your article. There you go, trolls defeated.
Oh hey, look, the smithsonian already thought of that! Genius!
Comment by Matthew — February 18, 2013 @ 6:31 pm
From the looks of it, trolls appear to be irresistibly attracted to the sound of the word troll…sorta like the mating call of the goose.
Comment by Terry Ward — February 18, 2013 @ 7:31 pm
… so turn off the comment box?
Seriously. Problem solving skills.
Comment by John Haugeland — February 19, 2013 @ 2:01 am
TL/DR
Comment by Mike Hunterts — February 19, 2013 @ 1:52 pm
Sounds like you are comparing the general population to ants and trolls to a kid with a magnifying glass on a clear summer day.
Comment by Ttom 987 — February 19, 2013 @ 2:20 pm
Poorly written text occasionally deserves the troll treatment. It is the only way to keep the editors on their toes.
Comment by Dr Richard VonNostrum — February 19, 2013 @ 2:46 pm
This is a better description of American politicians and politics than it is internet trolling. You guys should do a little sociology experiment: Repost this article without a headline. Then remove every reference of trolls and trolling and replace it with a blank____________. Leave 5 multiple choice selections at the end of the article (one trolling, one politics, and 3 more competitive picks) and have people pick what they think the article was about.
Comment by Shmeckell — February 19, 2013 @ 3:00 pm
@Shmeckell
Fine idea, my scholar friend. Perhaps, could one of the 5 selections be sexual in nature? I feel as though it would greatly improve the accuracy of this social experiment.
Comment by Mike Hunterts — February 19, 2013 @ 4:14 pm
A troll is a supernatural creature of Scandinavian folklore, variously portrayed as a friendly or mischievous dwarf or as a giant, that lives in caves, in the hills, or under bridges. It is a form of social deviancy.
Deviant behavior is any behavior that is contrary to the dominant norms of society. There are many different theories on what causes a person to perform deviant behavior, including biological explanations, psychological explanations, and sociological explanations.
I subscribe to Kohlberg’s Cognitive Development Theory. The third level of moral reasoning, the postconventional level, is reached during early adulthood at which point individuals are able to go beyond social conventions. That is, they value the laws of the social system. People who do not progress through these stages may become stuck in their moral development and as a result become deviants or criminals, mostly residing in basements, as they are reminiscent of their ancestors’ caves and bridges.
Comment by D. Williams — February 19, 2013 @ 4:29 pm
I use to be disgusted…now I try to be amused.
Comment by MissFitz — February 19, 2013 @ 5:40 pm
I have to disagree with you, D. Williams. I know we have had our quarrels in the past, but I have studied CNNian’s behavior since around 2008. If you refer to the Betchotica Britannica volume 6, you may beg to differ.
Comment by Dr. Darkana Athenaster — February 19, 2013 @ 8:45 pm
“Basically, the researchers showed comments on a blog post about nanotechnology to study participants”
So the assumption is that trolling only happens in comments about science articles?
I’d say the trolling happens just as often in the article itself.
The journalist writes a sensationalistic factually-incorrect headline, knowing full well it will result in page views and drama in the comments section, which will lead to more page views, etc. We need to stop feeding the journalist trolls.
Comment by Ann — March 14, 2013 @ 11:00 am