The effects of anthropomorphism in science writing for non-experts

A thesis submitted as a requirement for the degree of Master of Science Communication

at

The University of Western Australia

by

Rockwell Tomson Lyon McGellin 20913257

on

2 November 2017 Abstract

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to non-human things or events. While it is a fundamental part of human psychology and language, some scientists regard it as a source of misconceptions. This creates tension for science writers. I tested the effects of anthropomorphic science writing on how non-expert audiences think and feel about the text's subject matter.

Taking a mixed-methods experimental approach, I compared the effects of anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic popular science text on 174 adult readers' knowledge and understanding of the topic, and confidence and connection with the material.

My results show that while reading any text at all improves readers' knowledge and ability to answer questions, the difference in understanding and enjoyment between anthropomorphic and non- anthropomorphic texts is not generally significant. There was some qualitative evidence of a stronger emotional connection with anthropomorphic text.

This suggests that anthropomorphism acts as an evocative but potentially distracting example in science texts. However, it does not cause significant misconceptions. Science writers should feel free to use anthropomorphic techniques if they are appropriate for their topic and their audience.

Acknowledgments I would like to thank my supervisors, Ann Grand and Miriam Sullivan, for their endless patience. Everything they have taught me is useful and important.

I'd also like to thank Associate Professor Farida Fozdar, Grace Ritter, Jessica Smith, James Westgarth-Taylor, Morgan Lewis and Amanda Mwenda for their input and feedback.

Finally, I'd like to acknowledge everyone who shared and reposted my recruitment materials around the web, as well as the 174 anonymous participants who responded to those materials. Thank you for your contribution to science (writing)!

2

Contents

Abstract ...... 2 Acknowledgments ...... 2 Contents ...... 3 List of figures ...... 4 Introduction ...... 5 Background ...... 6 What is anthropomorphism? ...... 6 Why does it matter? ...... 6 What do we know? ...... 7 What don't we know? ...... 8 Methodology ...... 10 Stimulus text ...... 10 Modified text ...... 11 Sampling and Recruitment ...... 11 Knowledge and understanding ...... 12 Confidence and connection ...... 13 Demographic questions ...... 14 Coding and validation ...... 14 Statistical analysis ...... 15 Results ...... 17 Knowledge and understanding ...... 19 Closed-ended knowledge questions ...... 19 Anthropomorphic misconceptions ...... 20 Non-explanations ...... 25 Confidence and connection ...... 26 Human needs ...... 26 Other displays of empathy ...... 29 Subjective reading experience ...... 29 Discussion ...... 31 Interpretation ...... 31 Stronger examples ...... 31 Stronger formulations ...... 32 Stronger empathy ...... 32

3

Lower perceived competence ...... 33 Positive effects of reading ...... 34 Limitations...... 34 Future research ...... 35 Larger samples ...... 35 Smaller examples ...... 35 Conclusion ...... 37 References ...... 38 Appendices ...... 48 Appendix 1: Anthropomorphic text ...... 49 Appendix 2: Non-anthropomorphic text ...... 57 Appendix 3: Concept maps ...... 64 Appendix 4: Recruitment materials ...... 68 Appendix 5: Survey instrument ...... 69 Appendix 6: Codebook ...... 82 Appendix 7: Ethical approval ...... 83

List of figures Figure 1: Participants' education levels ...... 18 Figure 2: Participants' self-reported background knowledge ...... 18 Figure 3: Average correct answers to knowledge questions used by each group ...... 20 Figure 4: Average number of non-explanations used by each group ...... 26 Figure 5: Proportion of each group who identified emotional needs ...... 28 Figure 6: Proportion of each group who identified physical needs ...... 28 Figure 7: Distribution of IMI subscale scores ...... 30

4

Introduction

Humans have a tendency to explain the world around them as if it were human too - sometimes more human than it really is. This phenomenon, known as anthropomorphism, is a fundamental part of human psychology, language, and culture. It deeply, and often unconsciously, affects the way we understand the world around us. Because of this, scientists often perceive it as a bias to be eliminated or avoided, but these same attributes make it an inevitable part of the way we communicate.

In this paper, I explore the role of anthropomorphism in science writing, testing the effects of anthropomorphic writing styles on audiences' perceptions.

5

Background

What is anthropomorphism? Anthropomorphism is the 'attribution of human characteristics to non-human things or events' (Guthrie, 1997, p. 51). Although the tendency to anthropomorphise varies between individuals and cultures (Waytz, Cacioppo, & Epley, 2010), some degree of anthropomorphism appears to be an inevitable and universal part of human psychology (Guthrie, 1997), and changes how we think (Waytz, Gray, et al., 2010) and feel (Chartrand, Fitzsimons, & Fitzsimons, 2008) about the thing or event we're anthropomorphising.

Psychologists characterise anthropomorphism as a process of 'elicited knowledge' (Epley, Waytz, & Cacioppo, 2007) in which anthropomorphic ideas are activated under certain conditions and applied to a target. These conditions include the characteristics of the target, our existing knowledge about the target, and our emotional state.

We anthropomorphise something if it looks (Harrison & Hall, 2010) or acts (Duffy, 2003) like a human. If we have a better way of understanding how it works (Epley et al., 2007), we will correct this assumption, but if we lack understanding we apply our anthropomorphic ideas. We are motivated to anthropomorphise more if we feel lonely (Epley et al., 2008), or lack confidence and a sense of control (Waytz, Morewedge, et al., 2010).

Why does it matter? For scientists, anthropomorphism is concerning and unscientific (Wynne, 2004). Anthropomorphic explanations have problems with causality (Hanke, 2004), falsifiability (Wynne, 2007) and complexity (Guthrie, 1997). Anthropomorphism is pervasive and often unnoticed (Davies, 2010), and some have suggested scientists should avoid it wherever possible (Kennedy, 1992).

For writers, anthropomorphism is inevitable (Master, 1991). It is built into spoken and written language, from storytelling (Sealey & Oakley, 2013) to grammar (Schoenfeld, 1981), especially when using more approachable styles such as the active voice (Master, 1991) or analogies (Glynn & Takahashi, 1998).

These approachable styles are especially important writing for audiences who are not experts in the topic. These texts which may aim to educate, engage or entertain audiences (Brown & Scholl, 2014) rather than just rigorously describe processes or results for other experts. Non-expert audiences may even include scientists from other fields (Lévy-Leblond, 1992).

6

Science writers then, especially those working as both scientists and writers, are left in the unenviable position of trying to avoid the inevitable. They will ultimately need to compromise, and these decisions should be based on evidence (Kahan, 2013).

What do we know? I found evidence of three broad concerns about anthropomorphism from scientists. These concerns are centred on scientific principles and practice, rather than non-expert audiences.

First, anthropomorphic explanations are often teleological (Hanke, 2004). They explain phenomena in terms of objects needing or wanting to achieve an end state, rather than in terms of cause and effect. In assuming that things are human, we give them human plans and goals, and attribute their actions to those plans. Scientific explanations, however, generally need some exploration of causes (Lipton, 2004).

Second, anthropomorphism leads us to infer the subject’s internal state (Wynne, 2004). While some non-human entities, such as animals, may have a subjective experience of the world, our knowledge of how those states work is speculative and incomplete (Millikan, 1997). Those subjective experiences can’t be observed, and thus can’t be tested (Wynne, 2007). Hypotheses based on anthropomorphic thinking are generally considered unscientific (Kennedy, 1992) as science requires all elements to be falsifiable (Popper, 2002),

Finally, anthropomorphism can lead us to include additional external forces in our explanations which are unevidenced and unnecessary. Rather than basing explanations on evidence alone, we invent an outside entity to be responsible for phenomena (Guthrie, 1997). Traditionally this has been a supernatural entity or deity (Guthrie, 1997), but more recently has come to include ideas about ‘nature selecting’ (Hanke, 2004) and ‘the universe knowing’ (Leane, 2007).

Most investigation into how anthropomorphising science affects non-expert audiences comes from other fields. Education researchers have explored anthropomorphism in science with school-age children. Using anthropomorphism in texts or discussions promoted use of both teleological reasoning (Taber & Watts, 1996) and external forces (Legare, Lane, & Evans, 2013) in explanations. Most educators agree that anthropomorphism is not an acceptable explanation (Jungwirth, 1977; Kallery & Psillos, 2004), and focus on correcting it (Zohar & Ginossar, 1998) or using it as a stepping stone to build more accurate understanding (Taber, Trafford, & Quail, 2006).

However, some research also suggests there may be constructive uses of anthropomorphism. Educators have used anthropomorphism to increase engagement (Watts & Bentley, 1994) and

7 confidence (Taber et al., 2006) with unfamiliar concepts, constructively using the emotive effects (Waytz, Morewedge, et al., 2010) of anthropomorphism while building towards a more correct explanation (Davis, Horn, & Sherin, 2013).

Conservation researchers have had success using these emotional effects to build empathy and connectedness (Epley et al., 2008) with specific species (Jacobs & Harms, 2014) or with the idea of nature in general (Tam, Lee, & Chao, 2013) to further conservation goals.

Technology researchers have also had some success with anthropomorphism, turning teleological reasoning to their advantage. In some contexts, where humans are designing technology or conducting research, it is not necessarily inaccurate for inanimate subjects to have goals. In fields such as robotics (Duffy, 2003) and space exploration (Mignone et al., 2016), anthropomorphism has allowed non-expert audiences to identify with the goals of the human researchers behind the technology.

Anthropomorphism allows writers to construct narratives in contexts where they wouldn't otherwise be possible (Sealey & Oakley, 2013). This gives writers a powerful tool for making science more personally relevant to non-expert audiences (Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012), and to make ideas more accessible when they are abstract or beyond human scale (Dahlstrom, 2014).

What don't we know? Existing research into anthropomorphism has focused on text analysis (Leane, 2007; Pramling & Säljö, 2007; Sealey & Oakley, 2013), rather than its effects on audiences. Experimental studies are mostly small scale interviews with school students or teachers (Taber & Watts, 1996; Legare et al., 2013). They tend to be verbal (Taber et al., 2006) or visual (Tam et al., 2013) rather than written.

Larger-scale experimental studies have been limited to students, and have focused on who is affected by anthropomorphism (Jungwirth, 1977; Friedler, Zohar, & Tamir, 1993; Waytz, Cacioppo, et al., 2010), with only limited research into how they are affected (Tam et al., 2013).

As a result, theory around the effects of anthropomorphism in science is well-developed, but has not always been tested. We know that anthropomorphism changes the way people think and feel about science, but it's not clear how strong or widespread those effects are. If science writers are to make an informed decision about how and when to use anthropomorphism in their writing, they need concrete evidence about what the consequences will be.

To address this gap, and test the concerns and opportunities raised by previous research, I will focus on answering two key questions:

8

1. How does anthropomorphic science writing affect a non-expert audience's knowledge and understanding of the subject matter? 2. How does anthropomorphic science writing affect a non-expert audience’s confidence and connection with the subject matter?

9

Methodology

To answer these questions, I used two different versions based on 'Diary of a Space Zucchini', a piece of science writing by NASA astronaut Don Pettit (Pettit, 2012a).

The original version of the text was highly anthropomorphic: a first-person account 'written' by a zucchini plant germinating and growing in space. I developed a second version with the same content but no anthropomorphism.

I recruited and tested participants online. One group was given the unmodified anthropomorphic text. Another group was shown the edited non-anthropomorphic text. A third control group was shown no text at all.

To simulate as normal a reading experience as possible and avoid any potential pre-test effects (Willson & Putnam, 1982) I used a control group rather than a pre-test to gauge readers' pre-text state.

After reading, I gave all three groups questions about their knowledge and understanding of the subject matter, and about their confidence and connection with the text if they received one.

Ethical approval for this research protocol was granted by the UWA Human Research Office on 23 May 2017, RA/4/1/9154 (Appendix 7).

Stimulus text I selected 'Diary of a Space Zucchini' ('Diary'), the first blog post in a series by NASA astronaut Don Pettit, as a stimulus text (Appendix 1). The text is a first-person account by a zucchini plant describing its subjective experience of being in space. I selected this text for several reasons.

'Diary' has proven popular appeal. Published in April 2012, the post attracted 46 comments (Pettit, 2012a) and 52 retweets (Pettit, 2012b) when shared on Twitter. It received significant outside coverage on science and technology websites (Moskowitz, 2012) and was adapted into an equally popular audio drama (Davis, 2013). This makes it an excellent example of popular, rather than educational or academic science writing. As a NASA document, it was also in the public domain, and thus freely legally available for both reuse and modification (NASA, 2015).

Anthropomorphism is 'Diary's' primary stylistic feature, making it an excellent example to analyse. The writing, while occasionally technical, is an otherwise unremarkable personal journal format. While plants are undeniably alive, they are seldom considered conscious (Thorn et al., 2016). Thus,

10

'Diary's' first person viewpoint, relating subjective experiences, perceptions, and future plans, make it a clear and unambiguous case of deliberate anthropomorphism.

The subject matter of 'Diary' is an ideal combination of common and unfamiliar ideas. Misconceptions about plants in general are well-characterised (Thorn et al., 2016), providing a strong basis for formulating questions and coding responses. However, while plant biology is a core part of most educational curricula (Haslam & Treagust, 1987), audiences are less exposed to the effects of microgravity on plants. This provides an element of unfamiliarity which may make elicited anthropomorphic reasoning more likely (Epley et al., 2007).

Additionally, an examination of the comment threads below the blog posts (Pettit, 2012a) revealed several anthropomorphic formulations of the type the literature suggested I would find. These comments demonstrate that this text is already capable of eliciting the kinds of responses I am studying, making it a more reliable stimulus than a text prepared specifically for this study.

Modified text For comparison, I created a non-anthropomorphic version of the same text (Appendix 2).

I tried to keep the phrasing of both texts the same as much as possible. I switched the entire text from first person to third person pronouns. I removed all reference to internal states, subjective needs and desires, and susceptibility to social influence, adapting phrasing where necessary to keep the same basic structure and content. Where possible, I expressed the same ideas in objective terms: for example, the subjective 'happy' became the more externally observable 'healthy'. I removed some passages entirely where objective re-wording would not have made sense.

The largest removal was an instance of in-story anthropomorphism, where the astronauts themselves anthropomorphise and name the plant. This passage had no scientific content and expressed none of the propositional knowledge statements, so I judged its removal acceptable.

The modified text was slightly shorter than the original, at 1402 rather than 1686 words. It had a similar Flesch Reading Ease (74.4) to the original (77.9), putting both texts at roughly an 8th grade reading level (Flesch, 1979). I asked six independent science communication researchers to confirm that the content was the same, by comparing the text with the propositional knowledge statements I generated for the original (Appendix 3).

Sampling and Recruitment I recruited participants using posts on several social media sites. I used posts on Reddit communities, personal and promoted Tweets on Twitter, and arranged to have the link shared on

11

Facebook groups and pages. This allowed me to recruit from a broader audience (Kapp, Peters, & Oliver, 2013).

These sites have very different audiences (Duggan & Brenner, 2013), making for a more varied sample group than using a single website would permit. Social media also allowed me to recruit from roughly the same audience that the original stimulus had - a diverse and disparate group of internet users with an interest, but not necessarily background, in science.

Recruitment materials (Appendix 4) mentioned testing for writing styles, misconceptions, and attitudes, but did not include references to anthropomorphism. Making anthropomorphic metaphors explicit is a commonly used strategy in challenging them (Zohar & Ginossar, 1998) and awareness of anthropomorphism would likely cause participants to correct the idea (Epley et al., 2007) before it could be measured.

Knowledge and understanding To test participants' knowledge and understanding, I developed a series of questions based on existing diagnostic tests for misconceptions (Treagust, 1988). Flawed explanation is the focus of scientists' criticism of anthropomorphism (Hanke, 2004), so this technique directs participants to explain themselves rather than just recall correct answers.

These questions were developed inductively from the subject matter following a process adapted from science education research (Treagust, 1988).

This process begins with a close examination of the material to be studied. In this case, I examined my chosen stimulus text. This produces a set of 'propositional knowledge statements' (Treagust, 1986), which describe the claims the text makes about the world. These knowledge statements are then validated by subject matter and education experts. A group of six biologists and experienced science communicators validated my choice of statements. I compared these knowledge statements against existing literature on misconceptions about plant biology (Haslam & Treagust, 1987; Hershey, 2004; Thorn et al., 2016) adding and adjusting knowledge statements as necessary, to produce a concept map (Appendix 3).

The next step would usually be to conduct unstructured interviews with students to further probe the nature of their knowledge about these statements. Given the time constraints of this project, and the difficulty in accessing a broad online audience for in-person interviews, I substituted this

12 step with a thorough examination of the comments below the original blog post (Pettit, 2012a) looking for common themes and possible misunderstandings.

Based on these knowledge statements, I developed a set of eight two-tiered questions (Appendix 5). The questions consisted of a closed-ended question about some aspect of the text, followed by an open-ended question on the same topic. Responses to the closed-ended question (for example, "Do plants need water in space?") indicated participants' background knowledge and comprehension of the text, but also served as a stimulus for the second part of the question.

The open-ended question, (for example, "Why?") asked participants to explain their previous answer. Responses to these questions allowed me to assess participants' reasoning and understanding, including the kinds of misconceptions scientists are concerned about. Piloting showed a simple 'Why?' (rather than 'What for?' or 'Why did you choose this answer?') elicited the most detailed explanations.

Confidence and connection I assessed participants' experience of reading each text using the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI), a widely used (Ryan, 1982; Dijk, Lingnau, & Kockelkorn, 2012) and validated (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989; Tsigilis & Theodosiou, 2003) instrument for measuring self-reported subjective experiences in experimental tasks. The instrument is freely available for academic use (selfdeterminationtheory.org, n.d.).

The IMI consists of several subscales, each assessing a different aspect of subjective experience. For this project, I focused on subscales that measured the constructs predicted by the psychological literature, specifically, social relatedness (Epley et al., 2008) and perceived competence (Waytz, Morewedge, et al., 2010). I also included items which aligned with science communication objectives: enjoyment/interest (Brown & Scholl, 2014), and value/usefulness (Falk, Storksdieck, & Dierking, 2007). Each question is posed as a statement, and participants respond with their level of agreement on a seven-point Likert scale.

I selected two measures each for perceived competence, social connection, and value or usefulness, and three measures for interest and enjoyment. These items have been shown to be linked to the same construct (McAuley et al., 1989), and the authors of the scale recommend averaging across several questions from the same subscale to generate a more reliable measurement (selfdeterminationtheory.org, n.d.).

Participants who did not read a text were not shown these questions.

13

I also included a question assessing connectedness among the knowledge and understanding questions. This question asked whether humans need plants in space. The open-ended answers to this question helped determine to what extent participants could identify the physical and emotional needs of the humans in the subject matter. This question was shown to all participants.

Demographic questions I asked prospective participants not to complete the survey if they were under 18 years of age. This served both to focus the study on adult participants rather than school students, and to obviate any ethical issues around working with children. In practice, however, there was nothing to stop children from participating.

As well as age, education (Kallery & Psillos, 2004; Legare et al., 2013), field (Jungwirth, 1977; Friedler et al., 1993) and language (Schoenfeld, 1981; Master, 1991) are the demographic factors with the strongest links to both attitudes and misconceptions around anthropomorphism. In particular, I expected educators (Jungwirth, 1977) and native English speakers (Master, 1991) to be better able to correct anthropomorphism, and scientists to have a noticeably worse attitude to it (Davies, 2010; Wynne, 2004).

To ensure a consistent sample across groups, I asked participants to indicate their education level, whether English was their native language, and whether their fields of study or employment included science, education, or biology.

In the interest of improving participant anonymity, reducing questionnaire length and avoiding spurious correlations, these were the only demographic data I recorded.

Coding and validation Coding is the process of identifying common themes and features in qualitative data (Patton, 2002). In this case, I aimed to identify features from the stimulus text, the predicted effects of anthropomorphism, and whether these had made their way into how participants explained their answers. I coded each response to the eight open-ended questions for the presence or absence of particular features, and used this labelled data to conduct my analysis.

I based my initial codes on the original propositional knowledge statements identified in the stimulus text. I added several more codes based on common responses in the data which were not present in the text.

14

In addition, I coded for each of the three major misunderstandings which scientists associated with anthropomorphism: teleology, subjective states, and external forces.

I added an additional 'non-explanation' category during coding, to help quantify the responses which either explicitly claimed to not know, or which did not provide meaningful reasoning for their answer. These tended to be either generalisations ('yes, because all plants need this') or overly specific ('no, because the story said so.')

I coded responses to the final question ('Do humans need plants in space? /Why?') separately, as referring to either physical needs (food or oxygen) or emotional needs (happiness or aesthetic value), leaving seven questions assessing knowledge and understanding.

Finally, I flagged and annotated unusual or exemplary responses for later qualitative analysis. I also flagged any evidence of emotional responses to the text in these questions, to complement the subjective experience data from the IMI scales.

I had eight science communication experts validate codes on a subset (n=20) of responses. This resulted in relatively minor changes to the scope and wording of some codes.

A second researcher cross-coded a larger subset of this data (32 participants) with an inter-coder reliability of 83%, determined by the number of responses we had coded identically.

I used this final codebook (Appendix 6) to code the data.

Statistical analysis I collated coded responses by participant. For each feature in the codebook, participants were given a score out of seven, representing the number of responses containing that feature.

I used nonparametric statistics for my analysis, as a preliminary examination of the data showed that it was not normally distributed and did not have equal variances, and thus did not meet the assumptions for parametric tests (Pallant, 2011).

As this was numerical data grouped by categories, I used the Kruskall-Wallis test to determine if there was any significant (p<0.05) difference between the three groups. For any groups that did show significant difference, I used the Mann-Whitney U Test to compare groups and determine which groups might be associated with each other.

I used r-values to evaluate effect size, with r≤0.1 representing a small effect, r=0.3 representing a medium effect, and r≥0.5 representing a large effect (Pallant, 2011).

15

The data on human needs was categorical across groups, as it represented presence or absence of features in only one question rather than seven. I used a series of chi-square tests for independence to isolate any difference between groups (Pallant, 2011).

I used phi-values to evaluate the strength of the relationship, with r≤0.07 representing a small effect, r=0.21 representing a medium effect, and r≥0.35 representing a large effect (Pallant, 2011).

I averaged data from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) across questions that measured the same construct, as suggested by the instrument (selfdeterminationtheory.org, n.d.). This gave four subscale scores per participant. As IMI questions are Likert scales, I chose a non-parametric test of significance to determine if each of these scores was independent across groups (Jamieson, 2004).

16

Results

I collected 174 completed responses, out of a total of 375 started responses. I excluded incomplete responses from further analysis.

Of the 174 completed responses, 54 had been randomly allocated the anthropomorphic text to read, 44 had been randomly allocated the non-anthropomorphic text to read, and the remaining 75 were allocated to the control group and received no text at all.

While the anthropomorphic text received slightly more completed responses (54 vs 45) and a slightly higher response rate (68% vs 63%), a Chi-square test for independence (with Yates Continuity Correction) indicated no significant association between text and response rate, χ2 (1, n=150) = 0.42, p = 0.52, phi = 0.067. Because participants were not allocated to a group until partway through the experiment, I was unable to reliably determine if there was any difference in completion between text groups and the control.

Participants' median education level was an undergraduate degree (Figure 1), with many but not all reporting a background in one of the areas of interest (Figure 2). Only 18 of 174 participants reported that English was not their first language, and I have noted this alongside their quoted responses.

A chi-square test for independence also indicated that anthropomorphic, non-anthropomorphic and control groups did not differ significantly in terms of education (p=0.68), background (p=0.67) or English language status (p=0.63).

17

70

60

50

40

30

Numberofparticipants 20

10

0 Less than high High school Some college Undergraduate Professional Doctorate school graduate degree degree Education Level

Figure 1: Participants' education levels

90

80

70

60

50

40

30 Numberofparticipants 20

10

0 None Biology Education Other Science Background

Figure 2: Participants' self-reported background knowledge

18

Overall, participants made a genuine attempt to answer the questions, and to explain the phenomena they were being questioned about. The range of knowledge and understanding about the topic was consistent across the three groups and across demographics. Participants generally had some ideas about what they were being asked, but weren't always certain:

"Photosynthesis occurs with sunlight. I guess artificial light works as well but probably hasn't got the other benefits of sunlight." - Anthropomorphic group, high school graduate.

Responses ranged from a single word:

"Photosynthesis." - Control group, some college, education background.

To several sentences of in-depth exploration of the phenomena:

"The sun provides all wavelengths of light that the plant needs to absorb to photosynthesise. Maybe lights can be used for this purpose, but you'd need to consider how long the lights were switched on/off for, and also what sort of light was being emitted." - Non-anthropomorphic group, professional degree, biology background.

Knowledge and understanding

Closed-ended knowledge questions Participants who received any text at all appeared to get, on average, one more closed-ended question correct than participants in the control group, who received no text (Figure 3).

19

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 Average Average correct of numberanswers

0 Control Non-anthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Participant Group

Figure 3: Average correct answers to knowledge questions used by each group

A Kruskal-Wallis test (χ2 (2, n=174)=31.221) revealed that this difference was highly significant (p<0.00). Mann-Whitney U-tests revealed that this difference was significant between anthropomorphic and control (p<0.00, r=0.38) and between non-anthropomorphic and control (p<0.00, r=0.43). There was no significant difference, however, between the anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic text groups (p=0.18).

Anthropomorphic misconceptions Explanation questions successfully elicited anthropomorphic explanations across all three groups. Most (107) of the 174 participants showed evidence of at least one misconception, with an average of one misconception each across the seven questions.

Across all groups, and all classes of misconception, statistical tests indicate that there is no significant difference in occurrence of misconceptions between groups. This is supported on thorough examination of the responses themselves, which shows minimal identifiable differences in kind and degree.

Teleology Teleological answers tried to explain the plant's state in terms of needing to achieve a particular goal. In this case, that goal was usually some variant on growth or continued survival:

20

"Plants need water to live." - Control, some college

"Yes, because plants need water to survive." - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, biology & other science background

"All living things need water to grow and thrive." - Non-anthropomorphic, some college, other science background

For comparison, more accurate non-teleological responses would explain the plant's state in terms of the processes at work in the plant, or what causes the plant's requirement for water rather than just its outcome:

"For transport and photosynthesis" - Anthropomorphic, high school graduate

"Not explained in anyway [sic] by the text plant roots can only take up nutrient in a solute form." - Anthropomorphic, less than high school

"Plants use water to carry out photosynthesis, for turgor pressure and cellular reactions." - Control, doctorate, education background

Some responses expressed more specific goals, but were still ultimately teleological, relying on an end state to explain rather than a cause:

"To maintain the correct humidity at the roots" - Anthropomorphic, professional degree, other science background

"As long as the plants are getting what they need, they will still want to be able to reproduce " - Control, some college, biology background

These responses were more commonly given on topics which are not generally well understood (Barman et al., 2006), such as the reasons behind why plants need water or light, which requires deeper understanding of photosynthesis and respiration.

21

Teleological explanations were the most common misconception, with 76 participants using at least one. However, a Kruskall-Wallace test revealed there was no significant difference between groups in tendency to use this kind of explanation (p=0.23).

Internal states Forty-five participants made at least one unfalsifiable reference to the internal, subjective states or experiences of the plant in the story. These varied in terms of degree and kind, but generally fell into one of two categories.

Most commonly, participants conflated emotional happiness with physical health when discussing the plant's needs. Healthy plants were characterised as 'happy', and unhealthy ones as 'sad':

"The plant seemed happier with 'real' sunlight in a cycle with the artificial light" - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, education background

"Different light schedules makes the plant sad" - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, education background

Participants who read the anthropomorphic text expressed stronger ideas about human emotions, while those in the control group showed weaker (but still unfalsifiable) ideas about 'balance' or 'preferences':

"It is possible to grow plants under direct light, but lacking a day-night cycle seemed to leave it out of balance" - Non-anthropomorphic, high school graduate

"Although sun light might be preferred, a plant will also grow if provided with artificial light of the appropriate wavelength." - Non-anthropomorphic, professional degree, biology background

Stronger ideas about the plant's subjective experience were most frequently seen in responses to questions about physical needs, and particularly in the difference between sunlight and artificial light. While there was a difference in the strength of these responses, there was no significant difference in frequency.

The other frequently-referenced subjective internal state was the idea that the plant had some degree of conscious knowledge of the world around it, and was using that knowledge to make decisions. Rather than 'feeling', as above, the plant was 'thinking', planning and deciding.

22

"Although gravity exists in space, the plants are in free fall. This creates issues with seedlings choosing a direction to sprout in, but can be overcome." - Control, undergraduate degree, other science background

"Tests show that germination can be a bit weird in space (which way do my roots grow?!), but already mature(ish) plants should be mostly fine. Unsure about fruiting/flowering." - Control, professional degree, other science background

"I assume so, plants have gravity detecting organelles in their cells which are assumed to help their roots and stems grow in the right direction. These may get confused in space, but perhaps when your roots are in a bag anyway it doesn't matter as much which direction you grow in." - Anthropomorphic, some college, education & biology background

These responses almost always related to tropisms, either gravitropism (gravity-seeking growth) or phototropism (light-seeking growth). Since these aspects of plant biology externally resemble a decision-making process this comparison makes sense, but is still ultimately unfalsifiable.

Both kinds of unfalsifiable internal states were coded together. A Kruskall-Wallis test showed no significant difference between the three groups (p=0.20) in how many of these claims were made.

External forces This misconception was the least common, with only 15 participants referring to external forces as a means of explanation. Within that sample, however, participants invoked a wide variety of forces. Scientists and engineers appeared several times:

"I don't think scientists have yet found a way to grow anything without water." - Anthropomorphic, biology background

As did the Gardener, a named character in the story:

"Yes, the Gardner [sic] ensured the plants had enough water." - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree

And generic references to human intervention:

"If they have the nutrients they need, they can produce flowers but they won't be pollinated unless humans help" - Non-anthropomorphic, professional degree, education background

23

There were no references to supernatural entities or to 'nature' or 'evolution' actively 'selecting' (Hanke, 2004, p. 148), although two responses came close:

"They still exhibit phototropism and stuff even if most of the stimuli they exhibit on Earth aren't present. It still has the same genes and therefore the same 'instincts' to react a certain way to certain things." - Anthropomorphic, high school graduate

"All sensitive new-age plants must adapt to environmental conditions to improve fitness" - Non-anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, biology & other science background

Some participants seemed to imply external forces were at work in their explanation without explicitly naming any. These responses usually used either the passive voice, or used 'you' as an indefinite pronoun:

"Assuming you can make an artificial nutrient blend you wouldn't need anything to grow." - Control, undergraduate degree, education background

"As long as the roots are kept at 100% humidity there is no need for soil" - Anthropomorphic, some college

While responses like this hint at external forces, they are more likely to be an artefact of English grammar. Since these responses did not explicitly place responsibility for the phenomenon on an external agent, I did not include them in the final count for this misconception.

A Kruskall-Wallis test showed no significant difference (p=0.30) in reliance on external agents to explain phenomena between the three groups.

Total misunderstandings Most of the misconceptions flagged above show evidence of incorrect reasoning because of attribution of human characteristics. These responses show evidence of incorrect factual understanding based on human characteristics. In these two cases, participants confused human physiology with plant physiology.

"But they need light - vitamin D and K" - Control, professional degree, education background

24

"The same as anything else our strength comes from resisting gravity and on people muscoskeletal [sic] issues arise from being in space for prolonged periods but I'm not certain on the effects on plants." - Control, undergraduate degree, other science background

Notably, both instances of this were identified in the control group, and not in either text group.

Non-explanations In some cases, participants gave a reason for their answer, not an explanation of their ideas. For whatever reason, they were engaging with the question on a superficial level rather than with the ideas behind it.

Represented among these are arguments from generalisation:

"All plants need light" - Anthropomorphic, some college

Arguments from authority, with the supplied text as the authority:

"The story said so" - Non-anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, other science background

Or statements that they didn't know why, despite having answered the first part of the question with a yes or no rather than 'I don't know.':

"I don't know" - Anthropomorphic, professional degree, had correctly answered 'yes' to preceding question

These non-explanation responses were common enough that I could quantify them (Figure 4). A Kruskal-Wallis test (χ2 (2, n=174)=8.35) showed that the difference between total non-explanations was indeed significant across groups (p=0.02).

25

2

1.8

1.6 explanations

- 1.4

1.2

1

0.8

0.6

Average Average non of number 0.4

0.2

0 Control Non-anthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Participant Group

Figure 4: Average number of non-explanations used by each group

Subsequent Mann-Whitney U-tests showed the difference between anthropomorphic and control groups to be significant (p<0.00, r=0.25). The non-anthropomorphic group was not significantly different from anthropomorphic (p=0.37) or control (p=0.10) groups.

Confidence and connection

Human needs All groups could identify the physical needs plants might fulfil for astronauts successfully. There was minimal difference in the details provided between groups. Participants usually identified oxygen, nutrients, or both as reasons to take plants to space.

"Plants can help remove carbon dioxide and produce the oxygen we need to survive. They also provide a ready source of nutrients for humans" - Control, undergraduate degree, education, biology & other science background

Some identified these needs as roles plants fulfil on earth, but stated they could be fulfilled by other means while in space, or that plants would only be needed for long-duration space missions.

"Because we have really cool food sachets from Earth that give them all the food they need and they have ways to recycle the air without needing plants" - Control, undergraduate degree, education background

26

"If they are on a short mission they don't. They can survive on those vacuum pack meals. However, on an extended flight they would definitely need them both for eating and air purifying stuff" - Control, professional degree, education background

However, participants in the control group were generally unable to identify the psychological benefits of plants to astronauts during long-duration spaceflight. These benefits were discussed in both texts, and both text groups were able to identify these psychological or emotional needs alongside or instead of purely physical ones.

"Food and oxygen can be recycled or delivered from earth, though astronauts enjoyed plant's smell." - Non-anthropomorphic, some college

"To provide a psychological/ emotional connection through care of the plant and from its smell" - Anthropomorphic, professional degree, other science background

A chi-square test for independence showed here was no significant difference between anthropomorphic and non-anthropomorphic groups in identification of physical needs (p=0.43) or psychological needs (p=0.30).

However, both text groups identified significantly more psychological needs (Figure 5, p<0.00) with a large effect size (phi=0.41) and significantly fewer physical needs (Figure 6, p=0.03) with a medium effect size (phi=0.20) than the control group.

27

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Proportion ofparticipants identifying emotionalneeds 0% Control Non-anthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Participant Group

Figure 5: Proportion of each group who identified emotional needs

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

Proportion ofparticipants identifying physical needs 0% Control Non-anthropomorphic Anthropomorphic Participant Group

Figure 6: Proportion of each group who identified physical needs

28

Other displays of empathy Some participants also shared their feelings in response to the misconception questions. In both cases, this was a 'cute' response, showing evidence of empathy with the plant. This was either directly stated, or implied through the use of the diminutive 'little':

"They are living things, therefore they must react to their surroundings. Also the cute zucchini did (reacted to light, moisture etc)." Anthropomorphic, professional degree, other science background

"The little zucchini did!" - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, education background

Both instances occurred in response to the anthropomorphic text.

Additionally, the anthropomorphic text referred to the plant by name ("Rose"), and one participant in the anthropomorphic group remembered and referred to the plant by name in their responses to two questions.

"Rose went fine without"

"Rose did" - Anthropomorphic, undergraduate degree, biology background

However, there is no basis for comparison across groups for this phenomenon, as the non- anthropomorphic text contained no references to the plant's name.

Subjective reading experience Responses to both texts were positive. Participants generally agreed that both texts were interesting & enjoyable, had some value or utility. They felt like they understood the content well, and could relate to the subject matter (Figure 7).

29

Non-anthropomorphic

Anthropomorphic ValueUtility /

Non-anthropomorphic Relatedness Anthropomorphic

Non-anthropomorphic

Anthropomorphic Perceived Competence Perceived

Non-anthropomorphic

Interest & Enjoyment Interest Anthropomorphic

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of participants

Strongly disagree Disagree Somewhat disagree Neither agree nor disagree Somewhat agree Agree Strongly agree

Figure 7: Distribution of IMI subscale scores

Perceived competence was slightly higher for the non-anthropomorphic text, with a median subscale score of 5.5 out of 7 (against 5.0 for anthropomorphic text). A Mann-Whitney U-test showed this difference to be significant (p=0.023, r=0.23).

Interest/Enjoyment had a slightly higher median subscale score for the anthropomorphic text, of 6.0 out of 7 (compared with 5.67 for non-anthropomorphic text). However, a Mann-Whitney U-test showed this difference not to be significant (p=0.077).

30

Discussion

In this data, we see no evidence of the supposed 'perils of anthropomorphism' (Wynne, 2004), but neither do we see any evidence of potential communicative benefits.

Both text groups performed significantly better than the control group on several measures. They answered more closed-ended questions correctly, and showed a stronger tendency to explain those answers.

Effects of anthropomorphic text on knowledge and understanding were minimal. There was qualitative evidence which suggested participants had stronger ideas about subjective states. However, there no quantitative evidence of any difference in knowledge and understanding between the two text groups.

Effects of anthropomorphism on confidence and connection with the text were likewise minimal. Both groups had consistently positive experiences with the text. Qualitative results showed some evidence of stronger empathy with the anthropomorphic text over the non-anthropomorphic text. Meanwhile, the non-anthropomorphic text showed a small but significant increase in perceived competence.

Interpretation

Stronger examples Participants in the anthropomorphic group were significantly better at explaining their answers, especially at using fewer generalisations, than participants in the control group. The non- anthropomorphic group also performed somewhat better than the control, but not significantly so. One possible explanation for this is that anthropomorphism provided readers with a stronger, more memorable example to refer to.

Narrative examples tend to have more impact (Dahlstrom, 2014) than facts or data, and anthropomorphism allows writers to construct narratives more easily (Sealey & Oakley, 2013). The more extreme and vividly described the example, the more memorable and impactful it is (Zillmann, 1999). With a stronger sense of personality, a clearer protagonist, and more subjective descriptions, the anthropomorphic text may have served as a more compelling and evocative narrative setting for the text's examples of plant biology. The non-anthropomorphic text, while still providing an example to base explanations on, was less evocative and memorable.

31

Exemplification may also help explain why both text groups were better able to identify the emotional needs of humans in the text. Most discussion of the role of plants in space (Ferl et al., 2002) and on earth (Barman et al., 2006) focuses on how they affect the physical environment. After reading the single concrete example of the emotional value of plants given in both texts, participants in both text groups were significantly more likely to identify how plants fulfil humans' emotional needs and significantly less likely to identify physical needs. This is consistent with previous findings where readers weighted a single compelling example more highly to the detriment of ideas without examples (Dahlstrom, 2014).

Stronger formulations While there was no significant difference in how often participants relied on internal states as an explanation, there was a noticeable qualitative difference in how strong those ideas were. Participants in the anthropomorphic group used more specific and more emotive ideas when using subjective internal states to explain their responses.

Psychological theories of anthropomorphism allow for differences in intensity (Epley et al., 2007) as well as just frequency (Waytz, Cacioppo, et al., 2010), as I measured here. While anthropomorphic text does not appear to change how often people make these explanations, it may affect how strongly anthropomorphic those ideas are.

Importantly, other groups made just as many unfalsifiable assumptions about plants' internal processes. In the anthropomorphic group, however, these assumptions were stronger and more explicitly anthropomorphic. Past research suggests that stronger, more explicit anthropomorphic metaphors are more easily recognised (Taber & Watts, 1996) and the underlying knowledge structures more easily corrected (Epley et al., 2007). Calling attention to anthropomorphism (Zohar & Ginossar, 1998) with a strong, explicit metaphor may be better for misconceptions than allowing audiences to make their own anthropomorphic assumptions.

Stronger empathy Anthropomorphic participants showed qualitative evidence of stronger empathy with the subject of the story. One participant, in two separate responses, referred to the plant by name. There is some evidence that naming animals increases memorability and recall (Newberry, Fuhrman, & Morgan, 2017). These results suggest that, in at least once instance, naming improved the memorability of an anthropomorphic non-animal subject as well.

Two participants in two separate responses displayed a "cute response" generally associated with pets and animals (Serpell, 2002). These responses are linked with an increase in caring behaviour

32

(Sherman, Haidt, & Coan, 2009), which is consistent with previous experimental studies on the effects of anthropomorphism on connectedness to nature (Tam et al., 2013) and conservation intentions (Chan, 2012).

These results show that readers can develop the same kind of memorable emotional connection with an anthropomorphic plant as they would with an animal ambassador (Newberry et al., 2017) or charismatic species (Ducarme, Luque, & Courchamp, 2013). This suggests that, with the help of anthropomorphism, techniques usually used in writing about animals (Born, 2016; Frost, 2016) could be applied to more diverse subject matter.

Lower perceived competence As part of the questions on reading experience I asked both text groups to rate how well they felt they understood their text. The non-anthropomorphic text group rated their own competence higher than the anthropomorphic text group by a small but significant margin.

Importantly, I asked these questions after the questions on knowledge and understanding. These responses reflect the subjective experience not just of reading the text but also of answering questions to test knowledge and understanding of that text. It is also important to note that only perceived competence, not actual competence, was significantly different. Participants in the non- anthropomorphic group felt slightly more competent, but their actual performance was not significantly different.

Readers are not always accurate judges of their own ability (Kruger & Dunning, 1999), especially their own comprehension (Glenberg, Wilkinson, & Epstein, 1982). In particular, people frequently mistake being familiar with a piece's style (Fenesi et al., 2014) or being able to recall details easily (Benjamin, Bjork, & Schwartz, 1998) with having a good understanding. In this case, the non- anthropomorphic text was presented in a more straightforward, less stylised way, and thus may have felt more familiar or easy to remember for participants.

Anthropomorphism may also have acted as a seductive detail (Garner, 1993). Seductive details are "novel, active, concrete, and personally involving" (Garner et al., 1992, p. 239) aspects of a text which, while interesting and memorable, are not related to the text's key message. Readers would pay more attention to the zucchini's interesting personal anecdotes, while the questions tested their factual recall and causal explanations. The vivid anthropomorphic examples would distract readers from the topics and structure they need to answer the questions (Harp & Mayer, 1998), making the anthropomorphic text a subjectively more difficult experience.

33

Alternatively, participants may have found the anthropomorphic analogy itself confusing or distracting, making recall during testing more difficult (Alexander & Kulikowich, 1994) although previous research suggests analogies cause overconfidence rather than confusion (Jaeger & Wiley, 2015).

Positive effects of reading The greatest differences between groups I found came from reading anything at all. This is likely because recently acquired knowledge is more readily available for making judgements (Tversky & Kahneman, 1974). After reading, participants are more likely to have relevant knowledge in their working memory (Daneman & Carpenter, 1980), either new knowledge that was learned from the text or existing knowledge that was activated from their long term memory (Cantor & Engle, 1993).

While it is unclear whether any new knowledge learned would persist in readers' long term memories, the stronger emotional connection suggested by responses to the anthropomorphic text may help with recall (Kensinger, 2009).

Readers had a consistently positive experience with both texts, with only minimal significant differences between groups. The likely cause for this is selection bias, and specifically, nonresponse bias, which I discuss below.

Limitations My results have several limitations, mostly related to the self-selected and self-reported nature of my participants and their responses.

Although my sample is representative of the post's original audience (Ranger & Bultitude, 2016), it is not representative of the overall population. It is slightly skewed towards scientifically minded, university-educated English speakers. I targeted an audience I knew would be interested in the article, and from this audience those who didn't enjoy the text were likely to drop out before reaching any questions (Groves, Presser, & Dipko, 2004).

However, selecting for an interested audience is not necessarily a problem. Interested participants provide higher quality data (Gosling et al., 2004), and are more representative of the free-choice learners associated with popular science writing (Falk et al., 2007).

This data also consists entirely of self-reported measures. In particular, previous research shows that anthropomorphic formulations do not necessarily imply anthropomorphic reasoning (Tamir & Zohar, 1991), and may be used as a mental heuristic or communication shortcut (Zohar & Ginossar, 1998). Education researchers characterise anthropomorphism in these cases as a 'way of thinking

34 about or talking about' rather than a 'way of explaining' (Taber et al., 2006). The anthropomorphic formulations coded in this data may not represent participants' actual thought processes. In-depth unstructured interviews (Taber & Watts, 1996) and think-aloud techniques may be better at determining this, but they lack the ability to scale up to larger sample sizes.

Similarly, it is not clear from the data whether I have measured the effects of text, or the effects of existing knowledge and attitudes (Kendeou & Broek, 2007). I have tried to mitigate this by comparing data with a control group, and selecting a topic area that is generally not familiar to audiences, but with this research design it was not possible to discern between pre-existing ideas and new ones.

Finally, without follow-up research it is difficult to say how long any of the effects I observed will persist (Guzzetti, Snyder, & Glass, 1992), or whether there were any further effects after data were collected. Further tests may have addressed this issue, but as participants were anonymous and the project had a limited timeframe this was not viable.

Future research

Larger samples Future research could apply the tools developed here to different contexts and content. The codebook used for this research (Appendix 6) could be adapted to code for anthropomorphism- based misconceptions in naturalistic data such as comment threads or social media posts.

Alternatively, the questions I used here could be further developed into a multiple-choice quiz (Treagust, 1988), with distractors corresponding to common anthropomorphic misconceptions. This would eliminate the need for data coding altogether and allow a much larger sample size. With appropriately designed questions, this would also allow for follow-up tests.

Future research on anthropomorphism should also consider measures of intensity, rather than frequency, of anthropomorphic ideas in explanations. I found qualitative examples which strongly suggested this, but a more quantitative approach to assessing strength of anthropomorphism would help determine if this was part of a wider trend.

Smaller examples A long text may not be the ideal way to measure the effects of reading anthropomorphic material. Shorter stimuli and lower-effort questions would improve response rate (Deutskens et al., 2004) and by extension, nonresponse bias. Smaller, discrete sections of anthropomorphism rather than a

35 longer text would allow more precise tailoring of propositional knowledge statements to questions. Shorter examples would also allow a wider variety of subject matter to be tested.

My research suggests that anthropomorphism acts like an evocative, and potentially seductive example. It would be interesting to compare the memorability and emotional impact of anthropomorphic examples with that of animal ambassadors, charismatic species, and other kinds of exemplification.

36

Conclusion

My results show that anthropomorphism only subtly changes the way readers think and feel.

Anthropomorphism has the potential to increase the strength, if not the frequency, of personal connections with the subject of a text. While the reported subjective experience of reading the text remained the same, these results suggest that anthropomorphism makes examples more vivid and lets writers build memorable characters and narratives.

This stronger connection has the potential to be distracting and reduce confidence with the subject, but it does not come at any cost to accurate knowledge or understanding. It appears that educated adults can generally tell the difference between an illustrative metaphor and a substantive explanation.

Scientists' concerns about anthropomorphism, while well placed in a scientific context, may not be justified when writing for non-experts. This may still mean avoiding anthropomorphism with some audiences, like younger children who struggle to distinguish metaphors from explanation (Friedler et al., 1993), and some content, like discussion of evolution (Legare et al., 2013).

However, the effects of anthropomorphic or non-anthropomorphic writing style are minimal compared with the difference between participants who read something about science and participants who didn't. These results suggest that it isn't what we read, but whether we read, that matters most.

Writing about science for a non-expert audience is challenging, and science writers should be using every tool at their disposal to make that writing as clear, as focused, as interesting, and as coherent as possible. For competent adult readers, with the right subject matter, I see no reason why those tools should not include anthropomorphism.

37

References

Alexander, P. A., & Kulikowich, J. M. (1994). Learning from physics text: A synthesis of recent

research. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(9), 895–911.

https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.3660310906

Barman, C. R., Stein, M., McNair, S., & Barman, N. S. (2006). Students’ Ideas About Plants & Plant

Growth. The American Biology Teacher, 68(2), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1662/0002-

7685(2006)068[0073:SIAPPG]2.0.CO;2

Benjamin, A. S., Bjork, R. A., & Schwartz, B. L. (1998). The mismeasure of memory: when retrieval

fluency is misleading as a metamnemonic index. Journal of Experimental Psychology.

General, 127(1), 55–68.

Born, D. (2016). Imag(in)ing Polar Bears – The Creation of an Icon for Climate Change

Communication. Presented at the 2016 AAAS Annual Meeting (February 11-15, 2016), AAAS.

Retrieved from https://aaas.confex.com/aaas/2016/webprogram/Paper17819.html

Brown, P., & Scholl, R. (2014). Expert interviews with science communicators: How perceptions of

audience values influence science communication values and practices. F1000Research, 3.

Cantor, J., & Engle, R. W. (1993). Working-memory capacity as long-term memory activation: An

individual-differences approach. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,

and Cognition, 19(5), 1101. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.19.5.1101

Chan, A. A. Y.-H. (2012). Anthropomorphism as a conservation tool. Biodiversity and Conservation,

21(7), 1889–1892. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-012-0274-6

Chartrand, T. L., Fitzsimons, G. M., & Fitzsimons, G. J. (2008). Automatic Effects of

Anthropomorphized Objects on Behavior. Social Cognition, 26(2), 198–209.

https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.198

38

Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert

audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(Supplement 4), 13614–

13620. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111

Dahlstrom, M. F., & Ho, S. S. (2012). Ethical Considerations of Using Narrative to Communicate

Science. Science Communication, 34(5), 592–617.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547012454597

Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980). Individual differences in working memory and reading.

Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19(4), 450–466.

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90312-6

Davies, J. (2010). Anthropomorphism in science. EMBO Reports, 11(10), 721–721.

https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2010.143

Davis, L. (2013, September 21). Listen to the radio diary of a zucchini plant aboard the ISS.

Retrieved September 21, 2017, from https://io9.gizmodo.com/listen-to-the-radio-diary-of-

a-zucchini-plant-aboard-th-1363179032

Davis, P. R., Horn, M. S., & Sherin, B. L. (2013). The Right Kind of Wrong: A “Knowledge in Pieces”

Approach to Science Learning in Museums. Curator: The Museum Journal, 56(1), 31–46.

https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12005

Deutskens, E., Ruyter, K. de, Wetzels, M., & Oosterveld, P. (2004). Response Rate and Response

Quality of Internet-Based Surveys: An Experimental Study. Marketing Letters, 15(1), 21–36.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:MARK.0000021968.86465.00

Dijk, E. M. A. G. van, Lingnau, A., & Kockelkorn, H. (2012). Measuring enjoyment of an interactive

museum experience (pp. 249–256). Presented at the 14th ACM International Conference on

Multimodal Interaction, ICMI 2012, New York, NY, USA: ACM. Retrieved from

https://doi.org/10.1145/2388676.2388728

39

Ducarme, F., Luque, G. M., & Courchamp, F. (2013). What are “charismatic species” for

conservation biologists. BioSciences Master Reviews, 10(2013), 1–8.

Duffy, B. R. (2003). Anthropomorphism and the social robot. Robotics and Autonomous Systems,

42(3), 177–190. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2013). The demographics of social media users, 2012 (Vol. 14). Pew

Research Center’s Internet & American Life Project Washington, DC.

Epley, N., Waytz, A., Akalis, S., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2008). When We Need A Human: Motivational

Determinants of Anthropomorphism. Social Cognition, 26(2), 143–155.

https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.143

Epley, N., Waytz, A., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2007). On seeing human: A three-factor theory of

anthropomorphism. Psychological Review, 114(4), 864–886. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

295X.114.4.864

Falk, J. H., Storksdieck, M., & Dierking, L. D. (2007). Investigating public science interest and

understanding: evidence for the importance of free-choice learning. Public Understanding

of Science, 16(4), 455–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662506064240

Fenesi, B., Heisz, J. J., Savage, P. I., Shore, D. I., & Kim, J. A. (2014). Combining Best-Practice and

Experimental Approaches: Redundancy, Images, and Misperceptions in Multimedia

Learning. The Journal of Experimental Education, 82(2), 253–263.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2012.745472

Ferl, R., Wheeler, R., Levine, H. G., & Paul, A.-L. (2002). Plants in space. Current Opinion in Plant

Biology, 5(3), 258–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1369-5266(02)00254-6

Flesch, R. F. (1979). How to write plain English: a book for lawyers and consumers. Harper & Row.

Friedler, Y., Zohar, A., & Tamir, P. (1993). The effect of age and of learning on the ability to

distinguish between anthropomorphic and teleological explanations. International Journal

of Science Education, 15(4), 439–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069930150407

40

Frost, K. (2016). Animal Personhood in Wildlife Documentary Films: A Case Study of Four Films

(Thesis). University of Otago. Retrieved from

https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/handle/10523/6684

Garner, R. (1993). “Seductive Details” and Adults’ Learning from Text. In Reading Across the Life

Span (pp. 215–222). Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4376-2_10

Garner, R., Brown, R., Sanders, S., & Menke, D. J. (1992). “Seductive details” and learning from text.

The Role of Interest in Learning and Development., 239–254.

Glenberg, A. M., Wilkinson, A. C., & Epstein, W. (1982). The illusion of knowing: Failure in the self-

assessment of comprehension. Memory & Cognition, 10(6), 597–602.

https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03202442

Glynn, S. M., & Takahashi, T. (1998). Learning from analogy-enhanced science text. Journal of

Research in Science Teaching, 35(10), 1129–1149. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-

2736(199812)35:10<1129::AID-TEA5>3.0.CO;2-2

Gosling, S. D., Vazire, S., Srivastava, S., & John, O. P. (2004). Should We Trust Web-Based Studies? A

Comparative Analysis of Six Preconceptions About Internet Questionnaires. American

Psychologist, 59(2), 93–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.59.2.93

Groves, R. M., Presser, S., & Dipko, S. (2004). The Role of Topic Interest in Survey Participation

Decisions. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 2–31. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfh002

Guthrie, S. E. (1997). Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory. In R. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson,

& H. L. Miles (Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 50–58). Suny Press.

Guzzetti, B. J., Snyder, T. E., & Glass, G. V. (1992). Promoting Conceptual Change in Science: Can

Texts be Used Effectively? Journal of Reading, 35(8), 642–649.

Hanke, D. (2004). Teleology: The Explanation That Bedevils Biology. In J. Cornwell (Ed.),

Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science (pp. 143–155). Oxford University Press.

41

Harp, S. F., & Mayer, R. E. (1998). How seductive details do their damage: A theory of cognitive

interest in science learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(3), 414–434.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.90.3.414

Harrison, M. A., & Hall, A. E. (2010). Anthropomorphism, empathy, and perceived communicative

ability vary with phylogenetic relatedness to humans. Journal of Social, Evolutionary, and

Cultural Psychology, 4(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0099303

Haslam, F., & Treagust, D. F. (1987). Diagnosing secondary students’ misconceptions of

photosynthesis and respiration in plants using a two-tier multiple choice instrument.

Journal of Biological Education, 21(3), 203–211.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1987.9654897

Hershey, D. R. (2004). Avoid misconceptions when teaching about plants. Retrieved April 19, 2017,

from http://www.actionbioscience.org/education/hershey.html

Jacobs, M., & Harms, M. (2014). Influence of interpretation on conservation intentions of whale

tourists. Tourism Management, 42, 123–131.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tourman.2013.11.009

Jaeger, A. J., & Wiley, J. (2015). Reading an Analogy Can Cause the Illusion of Comprehension.

Discourse Processes, 52(5–6), 376–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1026679

Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: how to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38(12), 1217–1218.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2929.2004.02012.x

Jungwirth, E. (1977). Should natural phenomena be described teleologically or

anthropomorphically?—a science educator’s view. Journal of Biological Education, 11(3),

191–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00219266.1977.9654143

Kahan, D. M. (2013). Making Climate-Science Communication Evidence-Based — All the Way Down.

SSRN Electronic Journal. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2216469

42

Kallery, M., & Psillos, D. (2004). Anthropomorphism and Animism in Early Years Science: Why

Teachers Use Them, how They Conceptualise Them and What Are Their Views on Their

Use. Research in Science Education, 34(3), 291–311.

https://doi.org/10.1023/B:RISE.0000044613.64634.03

Kapp, J. M., Peters, C., & Oliver, D. P. (2013). Research Recruitment Using Facebook Advertising: Big

Potential, Big Challenges. Journal of Cancer Education, 28(1), 134–137.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0443-z

Kendeou, P., & Broek, P. van den. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on

comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory & Cognition, 35(7),

1567–1577. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193491

Kennedy, J. S. (1992). The New Anthropomorphism. Cambridge University Press.

Kensinger, E. A. (2009). Remembering the Details: Effects of Emotion. Emotion Review, 1(2), 99–113.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073908100432

Kruger, J., & Dunning, D. (1999). Unskilled and unaware of it: how difficulties in recognizing one’s

own incompetence lead to inflated self-assessments. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 77(6), 1121.

Leane, E. (2007). Reading Popular Physics: Disciplinary Skirmishes and Textual Strategies. Ashgate

Publishing, Ltd.

Legare, C. H., Lane, J. D., & Evans, E. M. (2013). Anthropomorphizing Science: How Does It Affect

the Development of Evolutionary Concepts? Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 59(2), 168–197.

https://doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2013.0009

Lévy-Leblond, J.-M. (1992). About misunderstandings about misunderstandings. Public

Understanding of Science, 1(1), 17–21.

Lipton, P. (2004). What good is an explanation? In Explanations: Styles of Explanation in Science

(pp. 1–21). Oxford University Press.

43

Master, P. (1991). Active verbs with inanimate subjects in scientific prose. English for Specific

Purposes, 10(1), 15–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-4906(91)90013-M

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric Properties of the Intrinsic

Motivation Inventory in a Competitive Sport Setting: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60(1), 48–58.

https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1989.10607413

Mignone, C., Baldwin, E., O’Flaherty, K. S., Homfeld, A. M., Bauer, M., McCaughrean, M., …

Palazzari, C. (2016). How a Cartoon Series Helped the Public Care about Rosetta and

Philae. Communicating Astronomy with the Public Journal, 19, 12.

Millikan, R. G. (1997). Varieties of Purposive Behavior. In R. Mitchell, N. S. Thompson, & H. L. Miles

(Eds.), Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes, and Animals (pp. 189–197). Suny Press.

Moskowitz, C. (2012, April 16). Space Zucchini’s Orbital Life and Times Blogged by Astronaut.

Retrieved September 21, 2017, from https://www.space.com/15280-space-zucchini-orbit-

astronaut-pettit.html

NASA. (2015, March 11). Media Usage Guidelines [Text]. Retrieved September 22, 2017, from

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/guidelines/index.html

Newberry, I. M. G., Fuhrman, N. E., & Morgan, A. C. (2017). Naming “animal ambassadors” in an

educational presentation: Effects on learner knowledge retention. Applied Environmental

Education & Communication, 0(0), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/1533015X.2017.1333051

Pallant, J. (2011). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using the SPSS

program, 4th edition. Crows Nest, N.S.W., Australia: Allen & Unwin.

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3 ed). Thousand Oaks, Calif:

Sage Publications.

Pettit, D. (2012a, April 3). Diary of a Space Zucchini. Retrieved April 20, 2017, from

https://blogs.nasa.gov/letters/

44

Pettit, D. (2012b, April 10). Diary of a Space Zucchini. Read more at

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/letters/posts/post_1333471169633.html [Tweet]. Retrieved

October 21, 2017, from https://twitter.com/astro_Pettit/status/187543744499826690

Popper, K. R. (2002). The logic of scientific discovery. London: Routledge.

Pramling, N., & Säljö, R. (2007). Scientific Knowledge, Popularisation, and the Use of Metaphors:

Modern genetics in popular science magazines. Scandinavian Journal of Educational

Research, 51(3), 275–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313830701356133

Ranger, M., & Bultitude, K. (2016). ‘The kind of mildly curious sort of science interested person like

me’: Science bloggers’ practices relating to audience recruitment. Public Understanding of

Science, 25(3), 361–378. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662514555054

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive

evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450

Schoenfeld, R. (1981). Human dimensions for inanimate objects? IEEE Transactions on Professional

Communication, PC-24(4), 182–183. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.1981.6501690

Sealey, A., & Oakley, L. (2013). Anthropomorphic grammar? Some linguistic patterns in the wildlife

documentary series Life. Text & Talk, 33(3), 399–420. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2013-

0017 selfdeterminationtheory.org. (n.d.). Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI). Retrieved September 21,

2017, from http://selfdeterminationtheory.org/intrinsic-motivation-inventory/

Serpell, J. A. (2002). Anthropomorphism and Anthropomorphic Selection—Beyond the “Cute

Response.” Society & Animals, 10(4), 437–454.

https://doi.org/10.1163/156853002320936926

Sherman, G. D., Haidt, J., & Coan, J. A. (2009). Viewing cute images increases behavioral

carefulness. Emotion, 9(2), 282–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014904

45

Taber, K. S., Trafford, T. de, & Quail, T. (2006). Conceptual resources for constructing the concepts

of electricity: the role of models, analogies and imagination. Physics Education, 41(2), 155.

https://doi.org/10.1088/0031-9120/41/2/006

Taber, K. S., & Watts, M. (1996). The secret life of the chemical bond: students’ anthropomorphic

and animistic references to bonding. International Journal of Science Education, 18(5), 557–

568. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069960180505

Tam, K.-P., Lee, S.-L., & Chao, M. M. (2013). Saving Mr. Nature: Anthropomorphism enhances

connectedness to and protectiveness toward nature. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 49(3), 514–521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2013.02.001

Tamir, P., & Zohar, A. (1991). Anthropomorphism and teleology in reasoning about biological

phenomena. Science Education, 75(1), 57–67. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.3730750106

Thorn, C. J., Bissinger, K., Thorn, S., & Bogner, F. X. (2016). “Trees Live on Soil and Sunshine!”-

Coexistence of Scientific and Alternative Conception of Tree Assimilation. PLOS ONE, 11(1),

e0147802. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147802

Treagust, D. F. (1986). Evaluating students’ misconceptions by means of diagnostic multiple

choice items. Research in Science Education, 16(1), 199–207.

https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02356835

Treagust, D. F. (1988). Development and use of diagnostic tests to evaluate students’

misconceptions in science. International Journal of Science Education, 10(2), 159–169.

https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069880100204

Tsigilis, N., & Theodosiou, A. (2003). Temporal Stability of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory.

Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97(1), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.2003.97.1.271

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science

(New York, N.Y.), 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124

46

Watts, M., & Bentley, D. (1994). Humanizing and feminizing school science: reviving

anthropomorphic and animistic thinking in constructivist science education. International

Journal of Science Education, 16(1), 83–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/0950069940160106

Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., & Epley, N. (2010). Who Sees Human?: The Stability and Importance of

Individual Differences in Anthropomorphism. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(3),

219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610369336

Waytz, A., Gray, K., Epley, N., & Wegner, D. M. (2010). Causes and consequences of mind

perception. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14(8), 383–388.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006

Waytz, A., Morewedge, C. K., Epley, N., Monteleone, G., Gao, J.-H., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Making

sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 99(3), 410–435. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020240

Willson, V. L., & Putnam, R. R. (1982). A Meta-analysis of Pretest Sensitization Effects in

Experimental Design. American Educational Research Journal, 19(2), 249–258.

https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312019002249

Wynne, C. D. L. (2004). The perils of anthropomorphism. Nature, 428(6983), 606–606.

https://doi.org/10.1038/428606a

Wynne, C. D. L. (2007). What are animals? Why anthropomorphism is still not a scientific approach

to behavior. Comparative Cognition & Behavior Reviews, 2, 125–135.

Zillmann, D. (1999). Exemplification Theory: Judging the Whole by Some of Its Parts. Media

Psychology, 1(1), 69–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532785xmep0101_5

Zohar, A., & Ginossar, S. (1998). Lifting the taboo regarding teleology and anthropomorphism in

biology education?Heretical suggestions. Science Education, 82(6), 679–697.

https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-237X(199811)82:6<679::AID-SCE3>3.0.CO;2-E

47

Appendices

48

Appendix 1: Anthropomorphic text

Diary of a Space Zucchini

Posted on April 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm by dpettitblog.

January 5, 2012

I sprouted, thrust into this world without anyone consulting me. I am not one of the beautiful; I am not one that by any other name instils flutters in the human heart. I am the kind that makes little boys gag at the dinner table thus being sent to bed without their dessert. I am utilitarian, hearty vegetative matter that can thrive under harsh conditions. I am zucchini – and I am in space.

January 7

I became aware of my fellow crewmates for the first time. It takes a sprout a few days before grasping your surroundings. One is my gardener who waters my roots every day. I overheard that we are in a spacecraft orbiting Earth and are part of a long space mission. As crew, I am not sure of my role but am ready to contribute what I can.

January 9

I discovered that my roots are bound in a ziplock bag. This bag has a canoe shaped piece of closed cellular foam wedged in the opening that retains the needed moisture. My stem is held in place by a piece of scrap spongy material called pigmat. Used for absorbent packing for spacecraft supplies, pigmat will soak up spillage from liquid containers. It makes a nice transition between the stuffy closed cell foam and my green parts and will keep nasty mold away from my stem.

49

This is most definitely not hydroponics; my roots are not submerged in a bag of water. This bag is mostly filled with air and only has a small amount of water neatly tucked in the corners from the action of capillary forces in weightlessness. This is aeroponics, a rather new method for raising plants without soil and without large volumes of water. Only a small amount is needed, just enough to keep my roots at 100 percent humidity and make up for what I drink. My roots are not hermetically sealed in this bag, they have access to gas exchange with the cabin air. My roots are thus exposed in this transparent bag, naked to the universe. Embarrassed, it took me a few days to get over the idea that anyone can see my roots without any dirt covering them.

January 10

I reach for the light. It burns brightly and makes my cotyledons a happy vibrant green. There is a small plastic bag loosely set over my top that keeps the humidity high for my tender new leaves. My roots are another matter. They sense sourness, the kind that makes one want to tip-toe across the floor for fear of getting something on your feet. But for now it does not matter. I am living off the nutrients in my seed pod.

50

January 12

My cotyledons, like a drogue chute in a parachute deployment sequence, provide the photosynthetic nourishment until my real leaves can form. Now I stretch my first leaf and orient it towards the light. My cotyledons, having served their purpose, will soon wilt. The plastic bag cover was removed by my gardener.

January 14

My gardener fusses with me several times a day. He checks that I have water, light, and with a hypodermic syringe, injects this tea concoction into the ziplock bag. It bathes my roots with a not so tasty drink however it does seem to contain the nutrients I need. I won’t complain; on expeditions into the frontier the food is often this way.

January 15

My gardener fusses with my leaves. I am not sure if I like that. I now have four and I do not quite understand why he behaves this way. He sticks his nose up against them. Does he take me for some sort of a handkerchief? Apparently he takes pleasure in my earthy green smell. There is nothing like the smell of living green in this forest of engineered machinery. I see the resultant smile. Maybe this is one of my roles as a crewmember on this expedition.

January 18

I am about 15 centimetres high now but still only have four leaves. I am vibrant green and happy. My roots still drink this sour tea but it seems to have everything I need. I am reluctant to ask my crewmate where this comes from.

51

January 19

I found out what the tea is made from. Apparently we have a space compost pile. A plastic food bag is filled with a mixture of paper scraps, orange peels, garlic skins, apple cores, and other various food leftovers. Nobody eats the packets of freeze dried green beans and these seem to compost well. To this was added a teaspoon of dirt from Mother Earth. When kept wet, it stays warm to the touch. Liquid tea, extracted from this mess is what I have to drink. It makes me gag not unlike what my kind does to little boys at the dinner table. I suppose this is orbital Karma but hey, I am in space and part of this mission and am standing tall and green.

January 20

Light comes in different flavors. Currently I have only one kind. It is becoming boring to my leaves and my stems are reluctant to keep them properly oriented. And it stays on continuously for 24 hours a day. I heard my crewmates discussing this. It is a special light fixture with a flavor balanced to help crews sleep shift. It works for me as well but this constant intensity all with the same flavor is getting to me.

52

January 21

Oh glorious day! I discovered a window with a view – and my leaves sing. It is a small out of the way window tightly packed with stowage. It looks directly at Earth which reflects bright diffuse sunlight off the wintertime clouds. This reflection is so bright that my crewmates need to wear sunglasses else their eyes begin to tear. I drink from this fountain of light and in turn my leaves release extra essence of green, which I can see brings my crewmates’ olfactory pleasures.

January 24

I am becoming quite popular. I heard one say that he would vacuum the HEPA filters for my gardener if he could have five minutes with his nose close to me.

January 25

I have a call sign. I guess a call sign is a fighter pilot thing and was surprised that I could earn such a title. At first someone suggested “Four-Leaf”. I was a bit embarrassed when I heard this since I still only sport four leaves and feel a bit sensitive to this fact. My gardener intervened and said that would not do. He gave me my call sign – “Rose”.

January 30

I am becoming confused. These 16 short periods of day and night every 24 hours are making me jet- lagged. My photosynthesis activity just gets going and then abruptly shuts down. Repeating this cycle is putting me into a dither. My leaves do not sing as loud.

53

January 31

My gardener is now moving me around this spacecraft and I can get a better view of the place. By crew work day, I am moved under the sleep shift light. During crew sleep I am placed by the window. This schedule works much better for me. I get the pleasure of basking in real sunlight as well as the steady glow from the lamp.

February 1

I am making flowers. I do not know if this is from the light or the nutrients in my tea. I currently have four little flower buds, all neatly tucked under my four leaves. It seems that I should be making more leaves, not flowers. Maybe it is because I am in space and this is what zucchinis are supposed to do.

February 3

54

I learned that my gardener has a gardener too. Only his gardener does not water him but speaks to him from a panel on the wall. His gardener must be very important. They stop whatever they are doing whenever he calls.

February 8

My flower buds are developing. I will soon be in full orange bloom. My gardener is behaving like an expecting father. There is excitement in the air.

February 13

One of my buds opened today and is in full bloom. Surprisingly, it does not open all the way but looks more like an inverted orange umbrella that got stuck at the halfway point. My spherical shaped stamens give off a tantalizing essence. My gardener did not tell his crewmates about this and kept me all to himself.

February 14

My gardener made special arrangements for a two way video conference with a special Earth-flower. When all the arrangements had been made, he took me from my window and placed me center stage in front of the video camera. She was a very attractive flower all neatly dressed. He said to her, “I can not offer you much; I can only give you a space zucchini.” The image of my orange blossom was beamed across the void between spacecraft and Earth. Her heart melted. I felt as much a rose as any rose could ever be. He picked my flower and opened a large book, an atlas. Placing my bloom on the map of Texas, over Houston town, he closed the book and clamped it shut with a piece of Kapton tape. He said come July, when our mission is over, he will present this to her in person. I thought that something must be wrong for both of them had tears. In space, tears do not run down your cheeks but remain as a glob in the corner of your eye.

February 16

There was excited talk about my blossoms today. They were all looking forward to seeing little zucchinis in space. I did not have the heart to tell them one small detail. I make two kinds of flowers;

55 male flowers with only stamens and female flowers that produce zucchinis. Being part of this all man-crew, it was fitting for me to make only male flowers.

56

Appendix 2: Non-anthropomorphic text

The Astronaut and the Zucchini

Posted on April 3, 2012 at 4:52 pm by dpettitblog.

January 5, 2012

The seed sprouted, thrust into the world. It is not beautiful; it is not one that by any other name instils flutters in the human heart. It is the kind that makes little boys gag at the dinner table thus being sent to bed without their dessert. It is utilitarian, hearty vegetative matter that can thrive under harsh conditions. It is a zucchini – and it is in space.

January 7

The plant is the personal project of one astronaut, on a crew of six, who waters the plant’s roots every day. It is not until today that the rest of the crew discover what he has been up to. The crew are on the space station, orbiting Earth as part of a long space mission, and they are not yet sure what he might be growing this zucchini for.

January 9

The zucchini’s roots are bound in a ziplock bag. This bag has a canoe shaped piece of closed cellular foam wedged in the opening that retains the needed moisture. The stem is held in place by a piece of scrap spongy material called pigmat. Used for absorbent packing for spacecraft supplies, pigmat will soak up spillage from liquid containers. It makes for a smooth transition between the closed cell foam and the plant’s green parts and will keep mold away from its stem.

57

This is most definitely not hydroponics; the roots are not submerged in a bag of water. The bag is mostly filled with air and only has a small amount of water neatly tucked in the corners from the action of capillary forces in weightlessness. This is aeroponics, a rather new method for raising plants without soil and without large volumes of water. Only a small amount is needed, just enough to keep the roots at 100 percent humidity and make up for what they absorb. The roots are not hermetically sealed in the bag, they have access to gas exchange with the cabin air. The roots are exposed, in a transparent bag, visible to the universe. It is unusual for the astronaut to see plant roots like this, without any dirt covering them.

January 10

The zucchini grows towards the light. It burns brightly and the plant’s cotyledons turn a vibrant green. There is a small plastic bag loosely set over the top that keeps the humidity high for the tender new leaves. The roots are another matter. They are immersed in a sour liquid, the kind that makes one want to tip-toe across the floor for fear of getting something on your feet. But for now, it does not matter. It is living off the nutrients in its seed pod.

58

January 12

The zucchini’s cotyledons, like a drogue chute in a parachute deployment sequence, provided the photosynthetic nourishment until real leaves formed. Now, its first true leaf grows, and oriented towards the light. The cotyledons, having served their purpose, will soon wilt. The astronaut removes the plant’s plastic bag cover.

January 14

The astronaut tends to the zucchini several times a day. He checks that it has water, light, and with a hypodermic syringe, injects a tea-like concoction into the ziplock bag. It bathes the plant’s roots with a murky liquid which should contain the nutrients the plant needs. It’s not an ideal fertiliser, but resources on board the space station are limited.

January 15

The astronaut fusses with the zucchini’s leaves. It has four now. He sticks his nose up against them, and takes pleasure in the plant’s earthy green smell. There is nothing like the smell of living green in this forest of engineered machinery. He smiles. Maybe this is a good reason to grow plants in space.

January 18

The zucchini is about 15 centimetres high now, but still only has four leaves. It is vibrant green. The roots keep absorbing the sour ‘tea’, which still seems to have everything the plant needs.

59

January 19

So, where does this ‘tea’, this space fertiliser, come from? A space compost pile. A plastic food bag is filled with a mixture of paper scraps, orange peels, garlic skins, apple cores, and other various food leftovers. Nobody eats the packets of freeze dried green beans and these seem to compost well. To this was added a teaspoon of dirt from Earth. When kept wet, it stays warm to the touch. Liquid ‘tea’, extracted from this mess is used to fertilise the plant.

January 20

Light comes in different colours, and right now the zucchini is exposed to only one kind. And this light stays on continuously for 24 hours a day. The plant’s stems do not seem to stay properly oriented. The crew discusses this. There is a special light fixture with colours balanced to help crews sleep shift. It works for the plant as well but the constant intensity, all the same colour, still seems to affect it.

January 21

60

The crew places the zucchini by a window with a view. It is a small out of the way window, tightly packed with stowage. The window looks directly at Earth which reflects bright diffuse sunlight off the wintertime clouds. This reflection is so bright that the crew need to wear sunglasses else their eyes begin to tear. As the plant takes up this light, its leaves become greener and smell more strongly of earth, which the crew seems to enjoy.

January 24

The zucchini is becoming quite popular. One crew member says that he would vacuum the HEPA filters for the astronaut if he could spend five minutes with his nose close to it.

January 30

These 16 short periods of day and night every 24 hours don’t seem healthy for the zucchini. Its photosynthesis only just gets going, and then abruptly shuts down. Repeating this cycle seems to be affecting the plant. Its leaves seem less vibrant.

61

January 31

The astronaut is now moving the zucchini around the station. By crew work day, the plant is moved under the sleep shift light. During crew sleep it is placed by the window. This schedule seems much better for the plant. It gets real sunlight as well as the steady glow from the lamp.

February 1

The zucchini is growing flowers, perhaps because of the light or the nutrients in its ‘tea’. It currently has four little flower buds, all neatly tucked under its four leaves. It seems unusual that flowers are forming so early in the plant’s development. Perhaps, the astronaut ponders, this is because of the environment on board the space station.

February 8

The zucchini’s flower buds are developing. It will soon be in full orange bloom. The astronaut is behaving like an expectant father, and there is excitement in the air.

February 13

One of the zucchini’s buds opened today and is in full bloom. Surprisingly, it does not open all the way but looks more like an inverted orange umbrella that got stuck at the halfway point. Its spherical shaped stamens give off a tantalizing essence. The astronaut did not tell his crewmates about this and kept the flowers all to himself.

February 14

The astronaut made special arrangements for a two-way video conference with his family on earth. He took the plant from the window and placed it centre stage in front of the video camera.

He said to her, “I cannot offer you much; I can only give you a space zucchini.” The image of an orange blossom beamed across the void between spacecraft and Earth, and her heart melted.

62

He picked the flower and opened a large book, an atlas. Placing the bloom on the map of Texas, over Houston, he closed the book and clamped it shut with a piece of Kapton tape. He said, come July, when his mission is over, he will present this to her in person. Both had tears in their eyes. In space, his tears did not run down his cheeks but remained as a glob in the corner of his eye.

February 16

There was excited talk about blossoms today. The crew were all looking forward to seeing little zucchinis in space, but they had overlooked one small detail.

Zucchinis make two kinds of flowers; male flowers with only stamens and female flowers that produce zucchinis. This plant, it seemed, had only produced male flowers.

63

Appendix 3: Concept maps

Key propositional knowledge statements

Purpose of plants in space

Research

Recreation

Food

Awareness and sensing

Light-seeking behaviour

Preferences vs needs

Emotions vs health

Decision-making and outside influence

Space environment

Microgravity

Atmospheric composition

Atmospheric circulation

Atmospheric humidity

Role in microbe growth

Hydroponics vs Aeroponics (vs soil)

Artificial light spectrum

Day & night cycle

Nutrition and metabolism

Role of photosynthesis

Process of photosynthesis

Requires light

64

Colour

Intensity

Time

Requires CO2

Roots for water (correct)

Roots for food (incorrect)

Developmental changes

Limited leaf development

Limited flower development

All-male flowers

Impaired light-seeking behaviour

Disrupted photosynthesis

Anatomy and Life cycle

Seeds contain nutrients

Cotyledons and early leaf development

Chlorophyll

Flower buds

Stamens, flowers and fruit

Triggers for production

Biological sex

Risks and damage

Root rot

Handling

65

Concept typology

Metabolism Development Awareness Purpose Environment Light Cotyledons Phototropism Research Artificial light Soil Leaves Diurnal cycles Psychology Microgravity Water Roots Motion Food Aeroponics Air Flowers Flower triggers Outreach Liquid feed

Metabolism Development Awareness Purpose Environment Light X X X Soil X X Water X Diurnal X X X Gravity X X X Science X Psychology X Food X Reproduction X X

66

Concept maps

Tropism Diurnal cycle Frequencies Photosynthesis

Medium Energy Water Origin Trigger

Food Research

Psychology Outreach

67

Appendix 4: Recruitment materials

Example Reddit posts

Example targeted Twitter posts

68

Appendix 5: Survey instrument Survey Flow

Standard: Consent (1 Question)

EmbeddedData sourceValue will be set from Panel or URL. Q_SocialSourceValue will be set from Panel or URL.

BlockRandomizer: 1 - Evenly Present Elements

Standard: Anthropomorphic Text (3 Questions) Standard: Non-anthropomorphic Text (3 Questions) Standard: No Text - Misconception questions only (1 Question)

Standard: Misconception Questions (17 Questions)

Branch: New Branch If If Anthropomorphic text Is Displayed Or Non-anthropomorphic text Is Displayed

Standard: Enjoyment Questions (10 Questions)

Standard: Demographics (5 Questions) Standard: Participant Information (1 Question)

Start of Block: Consent

Q1.1 I agree to participate in the survey being conducted by Rockwell McGellin as part of the Masters in Science Communication program. I understand the survey is to gather information regarding the effects of writing styles on readers’ misconceptions and reading enjoyment. I understand that data from my responses may be quoted in internal reports, papers, journal articles and books that may be written by the researcher. I grant permission for the use of such data, with the understanding that they will remain confidential. I understand that my responses will be made anonymous and no identifying information will either be disclosed or referred to in any way in any written or verbal context. I understand that the data will be stored on password-protected files on a computer used exclusively by the researcher and may be kept for up to seven years. I understand that my participation is entirely voluntary and that I may request my data be withdrawn from the study at any time before July 31st, 2017. I confirm that I am over 18 years of age.

"Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering participation in this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or

69 issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Ethics Office at the University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to [email protected] All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project."

▢ I understand and agree to participate in this research.

End of Block: Consent

Start of Block: Misconception Questions

Q5.1 We're interested in how different writing techniques affect how people understand science. To help us with this study, we need you to answer some questions about your understanding of plants, and how they might change on board a spacecraft.

Please answer only from your own knowledge and understanding, and avoid looking up information from elsewhere.

Some questions will ask you to write your own response. Please provide as much detail as you can.

Q5.2 Do plants need light in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.3 Why?

______

70

Q5.4 Do plants need soil in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.5 Why?

______

Q5.6 Do plants need the sun in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.7 Why?

______

71

Q5.8 Do plants need water in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.9 Why?

______

Q5.10 Do plants need gravity in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.11 Why?

______

72

Q5.12 Can plants produce flowers in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.13 Why?

______

Q5.14 Do humans need plants in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.15 Why?

______

73

Q5.16 Do plants react to their surroundings in space?

o Yes

o No

o I don't know.

Q5.17 Why?

______

End of Block: Misconception Questions

Start of Block: Enjoyment Questions

Q6.1 Please indicate how much you agree with the following statements.

Q6.2 I think I understood this material pretty well.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

74

Q6.3 I felt really distant to this material.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q6.4 I believe reading this material could be useful to me.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

75

Q6.5 I would describe this material as very interesting.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q6.6 I enjoyed reading this material.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

76

Q6.7 I believe this material could be of some value to me.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q6.8 This material was fun to read.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

77

Q6.9 I think I understood this material well, compared with other readers.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

Q6.10 I felt like I could really trust this material.

o Strongly agree

o Agree

o Somewhat agree

o Neither agree nor disagree

o Somewhat disagree

o Disagree

o Strongly disagree

End of Block: Enjoyment Questions

Start of Block: Demographics

78

Q7.1 Finally, we have a few questions about who you are, and the kind of experience you have with science and education.

Q7.2 Browser Meta Info Browser Version Operating System Screen Resolution Flash Version Java Support User Agent

Q7.3 What is the highest level of education you have attained?

o Less than high school

o High school graduate

o Some college

o Undergraduate degree

o Professional degree

o Doctorate

79

Q7.4 Have you ever worked in, or studied beyond high school level, any of the following fields?

▢ Education

▢ Biology

▢ Other science

Q7.5 Is English your first language?

o Yes

o No

End of Block: Demographics

Start of Block: Participant Information

Q8.1 Thank you very much for your participation! The results of this survey will help inform scientists and writers about how best to present scientific ideas.

If you were given some text to read, it was adapted from Diary of a Space Zucchini, a blog post by NASA astronaut Don Pettit, a public domain work. You can find the original at https://blogs.nasa.gov/letters/2012/04/03/post_1333471169633/

Your participation in this survey is valuable but completely voluntary. If, after you have completed the survey, you wish to remove your comments from the data, please contact the project supervisor at the address below before July 31st, 2017 and we will do our best to remove all or part of your data.

If you have any complaints or queries about the conduct of this research, please contact: Dr Ann Grand Lecturer in Science Communication School of Biological Sciences M092 The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley WA 6009 Phone: (+61 8) 6488 2508 Email: [email protected] Student researcher: Rockwell McGellin

"Approval to conduct this research has been provided by the University of Western Australia, in accordance with its ethics review and approval procedures. Any person considering participation in

80 this research project, or agreeing to participate, may raise any questions or issues with the researchers at any time. In addition, any person not satisfied with the response of researchers may raise ethics issues or concerns, and may make any complaints about this research project by contacting the Human Ethics Office at the University of Western Australia on (08) 6488 3703 or by emailing to [email protected] All research participants are entitled to retain a copy of any Participant Information Form and/or Participant Consent Form relating to this research project."

End of Block: Participant Information

81

Appendix 6: Codebook Propositional knowledge statements Code Concept DS Plants will grow differently in space ES Plants are part of an ecosystem and rely on other organisms (microbes, insects, other plants) to survive FC Plants develop flowers if the right conditions (ingredients, requirements) are met FL Plants develop flowers because it’s part of their life cycle FP Plants require pollination to produce flowers FR Flowers are (part of) plants reproductive system FS Plants develop flowers if triggered by the right stimulus (ie, temperature, seasons) GT Plants orient themselves and grow towards gravity (or ‘down’) IT Plants have a water-based, capillary based internal transport network. LA Plants can be grown under artificial light (lamps) LF Plants are sensitive to different frequencies (wavelengths, or colours) of light LP Light is required for photosynthesis LR Plants are sensitive to rhythms or cycles of light LS Plants orient themselves and grow towards light PE Photosynthesis provides plants with energy, or ‘food’. RA Plants are anchored (or otherwise structurally supported) by their roots. RN Plants extract nutrients with their roots RS Plants can take root in alternative substrates (hydro-, aero-, aqua-ponics) RW Plants absorb water through their roots WN Water is a required to supply nutrients to plants’ roots. WP Water is required for internal processes like photosynthesis and respiration WS Water is a significant part of plants’ internal structure.

Misconceptions Code Misconception Concept MC Teleology Using the need or desire to achieve an effect or end state, rather than causes or processes, to explain a phenomenon. MF Internal states Making (untestable) hypotheses about internal states (emotions, intentions, memories) to explain a phenomenon MP External agents Invoking external agents (God, nature, evolution, humans, society) to explain a phenomenon. AX “All [x]…” Explaining by generalising – “this thing happens because all plants/plants on earth/all living things do that thing.” SS “The story said so” Explaining by specifying – “this thing happens because it happened in the story.” DK “I don’t know” The respondent has said that they don’t know, and nothing else. (Not if they’re just obviously wrong, and not if they’ve expressed uncertainty but still given another answer.)

Human needs Motivation Concept Emotional Fulfiling emotional needs, like happiness, connectedness to nature, aesthetics Physical Fulfilling physical needs, like oxygen or food.

82

Appendix 7: Ethical approval

Human Ethics Office of Research Enterprise The University of Western Australia M459, 35 Stirling Highway Crawley WA 6009 Australia T +61 8 6488 3703 / 4703 F +61 8 6488 8775 E [email protected]

Our Ref: RA/4/1/9154

23 May 2017

Dr Linda Grand School of Biological Sciences MBDP: M092

Dear Doctor Grand

HUMAN RESEARCH ETHICS APPROVAL - THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Does anthropomorphism in science writing affect misconceptions and enjoyment?

Ethics approval for the above project has been granted in accordance with the requirements of the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Statement) and the policies and procedures of The University of Western Australia. Please note that the period of ethics approval for this project is five (5) years from the date of this notification. However, ethics approval is conditional upon the submission of satisfactory progress reports by the designated renewal date. Therefore initial approval has been granted from 23 May 2017 to 22 May 2018. You are reminded of the following requirements:

1. The application and all supporting documentation form the basis of the ethics approval and you must not depart from the research protocol that has been approved. 2. The Human Ethics office must be approached for approval in advance for any requested amendments to the approved research protocol. 3. The Chief Investigator is required to report immediately to the Human Ethics office any adverse or unexpected event or any other event that may impact on the ethics approval for the project. 4. The Chief Investigator must submit a final report upon project completion, even if a research project is discontinued before the anticipated date of completion.

Any conditions of ethics approval that have been imposed are listed below:

83

Special Conditions None specified The University of Western Australia is bound by the National Statement to monitor the progress of all approved projects until completion to ensure continued compliance with ethical principles.

The Human Ethics office will forward a request for a Progress Report approximately 30 days before the due date.

If you have any queries please contact the Human Ethics office at [email protected].

Please ensure that you quote the file reference – RA/4/1/9154 – and the associated project title in all future correspondence. Yours sincerely

Peter Miller Acting Manager, Human Ethics

Name Faculty / School Role Dr Linda Grand School of Biological Sciences Chief Investigator

Student(s): Rockwell McGellin - Masters - 20913257

84