【摘要】 社交媒体迅速发展，成为人们获取信息的重要阵地，一些偏离事实的科学谣言也不断滋生，甚至引发社会舆情，不仅危害互联网科普生态，还破坏民心稳定。研究采集社交媒体上2019-2023年传播的代表性科学谣言266条作为研究样本，首先基于叙事学中的叙事对象、叙事修辞、叙事方式以及叙事目的对样本进行内容分析。然后，采用定性比较分析(QCA)方法探究形成舆情现象的科学谣言叙事特征组合，归纳总结出5种具有解释力和典型性的叙事构型：构型一，针对特殊人群进行提醒；构型二，利用光环效应围绕热点事件引发公众的抵触情绪；构型三，基于相关事件运用科学证据提供可行的方式方法；构型四，通过科学证据提醒用途或拒绝使用日常生活物品；构型五，借用官方背书告知物品新用途或生活妙招。最后，研究对比内容分析和QCA分析结果发现了3条深层次的结论：(1)科学谣言中无论使用中立还是恐惧或善意的叙事修辞对引发舆情并不起关键作用；(2)逻辑推理对科学谣言的发酵不起作用；(3)针对特定人群的科学谣言最易引发舆情。同时针对性地对这些发现提出辟谣和治理建议。整个研究从叙事特征出发，了解科学谣言对舆情具有影响力的内在原因，以期为早期识别、及时澄清、持续防范科学谣言带来启发。更多还原

【Abstract】 With the rapid development of social media, it has become an important position for people to obtain information. Some science rumors deviating from the facts are also growing, even triggering social public opinion, which endangers the ecology of Internet science popularization and destroys the stability of people’s emotions. The study collected 266 representative scientific rumors spread on social media from 2019 to 2023 as research samples. Firstly, content analysis was conducted on the samples based on narrative objects, narrative rhetoric, narrative methods, and narrative purposes in narratology. Then, the qualitative comparative analysis(QCA) method was used to explore the combination of narrative characteristics of scientific rumors that form public opinion phenomena, and five explanatory and typical narrative configurations were summarized: Configuration 1, reminds special groups of people; Configuration 2, utilizing the halo effect to trigger public resistance around hot events; Configuration 3, provide feasible methods and approaches based on relevant events using scientific evidence; Configuration 4, remind purpose or refuse to use daily necessities through scientific evidence; Configuration 5, use official endorsement to inform about new uses or life tips for items. Finally, by comparing the results of content analysis and QCA analysis, three profound conclusions were found: 1) the use of neutral, fearful, or well-intentioned narrative rhetoric in science rumors does not play a key role in triggering public opinion; 2) logical reasoning does not contribute to the fermentation of science rumors; 3) science rumors targeting specific groups of people are most likely to trigger public opinion. Meanwhile, the study provides targeted refuting and governance suggestions for these findings. The entire research starts with narrative features to understand the internal reasons why science rumors impact public opinion and inspire early identification, timely clarification, and continuous prevention of science rumors.更多还原