A picture is not always worth a thousand words: The visual quality of photographs affects the effectiveness of interpretive signage for science communication
Photographs are widely used to visualise science. However, the influence of visual quality of photographs on the effectiveness of science communication is often disregarded and seldom tested. This study examines how the visual quality of photographs affects science communication on interpretive signage within Xixi National Wetland Park, China. Results show that a high-quality photograph on the signage significantly increased the following affective and cognitive aspects of communication: (1) a visitor's intention to read the signage, (2) enjoyment of reading the interpretive information, (3) understanding and (4) recall of the information on the signage. This study offers empirical evidence for the benefits of using high-quality photographs to visualise science. To improve the effectiveness of science communication in interpretive products, we argue that the quality of the selected photographs should be considered seriously.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 April 2021.
All research outputs
#7,810,836
of 27,625,920 outputs
Outputs from Public Understanding of Science
#624
of 1,157 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,088
of 536,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Public Understanding of Science
#15
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 27,625,920 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,157 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.4. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 536,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
