How readers understand causal and correlational expressions used in news headlines

Adams, Rachel C. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8053-0671, Sumner, Petroc ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0536-0510, Vivian-Griffiths, Solveiga, Barrington, Amy, Williams, Andy ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9603-4309, Boivin, Jacky ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9498-1708, Chambers, Christopher D. ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6058-4114 and Bott, Lewis ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4926-1231 2017. How readers understand causal and correlational expressions used in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied 23 (1) , pp. 1-14. 10.1037/xap0000100

Preview

PDF - Accepted Post-Print Version Download (586kB) | Preview

Abstract

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported in Vol 23(1) of Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied (see record 2016-59631-001). In the article, the fourth author was inadvertently omitted from the advance online version. Also, the second paragraph of the author note should have included the following: “Amy Barrington contributed to the design and data collection for Experiments 2 and 3. We thank the following undergraduate students for contributions to Experiment 1 and pilot work leading up to the project: Laura Benjamin, Cecily Donnelly, Cameron Dunlop, Rebecca Emerson, Rose Fisher, Laura Jones, Olivia Manship, Hannah McCarthy, Naomi Scott, Eliza Walwyn-Jones, Leanne Whelan, and Joe Wilton.” All versions of this article have been corrected.] Science-related news stories can have a profound impact on how the public make decisions. The current study presents 4 experiments that examine how participants understand scientific expressions used in news headlines. The expressions concerned causal and correlational relationships between variables (e.g., “being breast fed makes children behave better”). Participants rated or ranked headlines according to the extent that one variable caused the other. Our results suggest that participants differentiate between 3 distinct categories of relationship: direct cause statements (e.g., “makes,” “increases”), which were interpreted as the most causal; can cause statements (e.g., “can make,” “can increase”); and moderate cause statements (e.g., “might cause,” “linked,” “associated with”), but do not consistently distinguish within the last group despite the logical distinction between cause and association. On the basis of this evidence, we make recommendations for appropriately communicating cause and effect in news headlines.

Item Type:	Article
Date Type:	Publication
Status:	Published
Schools:	Journalism, Media and Culture Psychology
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology P Language and Literature > PN Literature (General) > PN1990 Broadcasting
Additional Information:	This article may not exactly replicate the final version published in the APA journal. It is not the copy of record. PDF uploaded in accordance with publisher's policies at http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/issn/1076-898X/ (accessed9.12.16).
Publisher:	American Psychological Association
ISSN:	1076-898X
Funders:	Economic and Social Research Council
Date of First Compliant Deposit:	2 August 2016
Date of Acceptance:	19 July 2016
Last Modified:	20 Nov 2024 05:15
URI:	https://orca.cardiff.ac.uk/id/eprint/93479

Citation Data

Cited 28 times in Scopus. View in Scopus. Powered By Scopus® Data

Actions (repository staff only)

Edit Item