國家地理:用吐槽的方式談科學(xué)效果更好(4)

In a 2015 follow-up study, we found that late-night humor can influence how viewers perceive climate science itself. This time, we tested the effects of a Last Week Tonight segment in which host John Oliver and guest Bill Nye hold a "statistically representative climate change debate" to illustrate the scientific consensus on the issue. Their "debate" shows Nye and 96 other scientists drowning out three global warming doubters. Watching this segment swayed study participants to see scientists as believing in human-caused climate change -- which, in turn, bolstered participants' own certainty that global warming is happening. The effect was strongest among those least interested in science.

在2015年的后續(xù)研究中，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)深夜幽默會影響觀眾對氣候科學(xué)本身的看法。這次，我們測試了《上周今夜秀》其中一個片段的效果，在這個片段中，主持人約翰·奧利弗和來賓比爾·奈進(jìn)行了一場在統(tǒng)計(jì)上有代表性的氣候變化辯論，來說明對該問題的科學(xué)共識。他們的“辯論”結(jié)果是，奈和其他96位科學(xué)家戰(zhàn)勝了3位全球變暖懷疑者。觀看這一片段確實(shí)影響了該研究的參與者，他們開始相信科學(xué)家們所認(rèn)為的氣候變化是人為造成的這一觀點(diǎn)，這反過來又增強(qiáng)了參與者對全球變暖正在發(fā)生的確定性。在不喜歡科學(xué)的人群中，這一影響是最大的。

Other research has revealed the same sorts of effects. A study by Ashley Anderson and Amy Becker found that after watching a satirical video produced by The Onion, formerly apathetic viewers felt more certain that climate change is taking place and is a serious problem. In another study, Chris Skurka, Jeff Niederdeppe, and Robin Nabi showed that a segment from Jimmy Kimmel Live! led audience members to perceive greater risks from climate change.

其他研究也揭示了同樣的效果。阿什莉·安德森和艾米·貝克爾進(jìn)行的一項(xiàng)研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，在觀看由新聞諷刺網(wǎng)站“洋蔥網(wǎng)”制作的諷刺視頻后，以前對此漠不關(guān)心的觀眾，開始確定氣候變化正在發(fā)生，并且是一個嚴(yán)重的問題。在克里斯·斯科爾卡、杰夫·尼德德普和羅賓·納比進(jìn)行的另一項(xiàng)研究中，結(jié)果顯示，觀看《吉米雞毛秀》片段的觀眾，意識到了氣候變化會帶來更大風(fēng)險。

Late-night hosts have also derided groups that, for example, cite a single discredited study to blame autism on vaccines, or push for teaching creationism in public schools despite the mountain of evidence for evolution. Kimmel has skewered fears about genetically modified foods -- which most scientists say are safe to eat -- by showing anti-GMO produce shoppers struggle to explain on camera what the acronym means. And on that Full Frontal episode mentioned earlier, a skit depicted fictional high school students mocking anti-vaxxers' claims ("Wow, you make vaccinations sound so cool; maybe it is bad to get diseases from the Middle Ages"). The 2016 poll that Paul conducted with Barbara Ley found that late-night viewers were more likely than nonviewers to agree with scientists on both GMOs and vaccines, even after accounting for many other factors that also shape science attitudes.

深夜秀的主持人們也諷刺了其他一些科學(xué)組織，例如引用單一且不太可信的研究將自閉癥歸咎于疫苗；或是盡管存在大量的進(jìn)化論證據(jù)，仍舊推動在公立學(xué)校教授創(chuàng)世論?？材栔S刺了對轉(zhuǎn)基因食品的擔(dān)憂，大多數(shù)科學(xué)家都認(rèn)為其可以安全食用。那些反轉(zhuǎn)基因產(chǎn)品的購物者，甚至都很難在鏡頭前解釋這個縮寫的含義。在前面提到的《正面交鋒》中，一部滑稽短劇虛構(gòu)了高中生對反疫苗接種者的倡議的嘲諷（“哇，接種疫苗聽起來很酷；不然染上中世紀(jì)的大瘟疫就不好了”）。保羅與芭芭拉·萊伊進(jìn)行的2016年民意調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，相比不觀看深夜秀的觀眾，觀看的觀眾更有可能就轉(zhuǎn)基因食品和疫苗與科學(xué)家觀點(diǎn)達(dá)成一致，即使是在考慮了許多其他影響科學(xué)態(tài)度的因素的前提下。