You won't believe what's in this paper! Clickbait, relevance and the curiosity gap
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Scott (2021) determined that each clickbait headline was meticulously designed to create an information gap that readers felt compelled to fulfill in searching for relevance.
“Scott (2021) analyzed clickbait features using relevance theory and determined that each clickbait headline was meticulously designed to create an information gap that the readers felt compelled to fulfill in searching for relevance.”
From Unlocking the Secrets of Clickbait Creation: A Relevance-Theoretic Analysis of the Chatbot-Produced Clickbait Headlines (2025) · cites this paper as Scott 2021
Cites
The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation.
Loewenstein, G. (1994) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.116.1.75 · Cited by 2,738 · see citing works
<i>Knock, Knock</i> . Who's There? The Imagined Audience
Litt, E. (2012) · Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media · doi:10.1080/08838151.2012.705195 · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ivković, G. (2025) · Facta Universitatis Series: Linguistics and Literature · doi:10.22190/full250724016i
“Scott (2021) analyzed clickbait features using relevance theory and determined that each clickbait headline was meticulously designed to create an information gap that the readers felt compelled to fulfill in searching for relevance.”
- Authors
- Scott, K.
- Affiliations
- Kingston University London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Scott, Kate
- ORCID
- Scott, Kate
- Venue
- Journal of Pragmatics
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-04
- Volume
- 175
- Pages
- 53-66
- ISSN
- 0378-2166 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3126507111
- Cited by
- 78
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 3
- FWCI
- 60.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Pragmatics (publishedVersion)
- Research Repository (Kingston University London) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Linguistics and Discourse Analysis
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Discourse Analysis in Language Studies
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Linguistic research and analysis
- Keywords
- clickbait headlines, information gap, relevance theory, superlatives, intensifiers, parts of speech, online news
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
