http://ijba.sciedupress.com International Journal of Business Administration Vol. 8, No. 3; 2017 Published by Sciedu Press 45 ISSN 1923-4007 E-ISSN 1923-4015 Do Paradoxes Prompt Better Attention and Recall? Implications for Publishing and Disseminating Academic Research Yellowlees Douglas 1 1 Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, Gainesville, USA. Correspondence: Yellowlees Douglas, Management Communication Center, Warrington College of Business Administration, University of Florida, PO Box 117150, Gainesville, FL 32611-7150, USA. Tel: 352-273-3215. Received: April 18, 2017 Accepted: May 4, 2017 Online Published: May 14, 2017 doi:10.5430/ijba.v8n3p45 URL: https://doi.org/10.5430/ijba.v8n3p45 Abstract In today’s noisy media environment, researchers and the public alike find themselves inundated with information. Yet studies that find their way into high impact-factor journals and into the mainstream media often share a common feature—findings that contain some elements of a paradox. Moreover, paradoxes create surprise in the most seasoned experts, and surprise turns out to be a powerful driver of curiosity, interest, and recall. This study measured the effects of paradoxes on readers’ comprehension of three versions of a news story representing academic research, containing explicit, implicit, and no paradox conditions. After reading, 98 undergraduate students enrolled in a business communication course responded to a question measuring their comprehension of one of the three versions of the passage both immediately after reading and after 3-5 days’ recall, without re-exposure to the passage. Immediately after reading, 95% of readers of the paradox-explicit passage correctly grasped the gist of the study, compared with 14% of readers of the paradox-implicit version and only 4% of readers of the no-paradox version. Moreover, 3-5 days later, 55% of paradox-explicit readers correctly identified the meaning of the study, compared with only 7% of paradox-implicit readers. These findings may demonstrate the effects of incongruity, controversy, and surprise on curiosity and recall. In addition to shedding light on an understudied but powerful phenomenon, these findings offer potentially valuable implications for the reporting of research outcomes to academic journals and to the public via media outlets. Keywords: paradox, surprise, controversy, memorability, reporting academic research, mass media 1. Introduction 1.1 Getting Heard in a Noisy Environment In academic research, some aspect of the research design, methods, participants, or outcome must have novelty for the study to demonstrate some contribution to knowledge in the field to meet criteria for publication. In fact, in the highest impact-factor journals, editors request summaries for lay readers that foreground novelty in research (http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/get_published/). Compare, for example, the Editor’s Summary with the opening paragraph of the actual Letter to Nature: Editor’s Summary ―Before the introduction of modern padded running shoes in the 1970s, and for most of human evolutionary history, humans ran either barefoot or in minimal shoes. A comparison by Daniel Lieberman and colleagues of the biomechanics of habitually shod versus habitually barefoot runners now suggests that the collision-free way that barefoot runners typically land is not only comfortable but may also help avoid some impact-related repetitive stress injuries…Runners who don't wear shoes land more often on the ball of the foot or with a flat foot. This means that they often flex their ankles as they strike the ground and generate smaller impact forces than shod, rear-foot, strikers — compare the impact generated by landing from a jump on your heel versus your toes‖ [emphasis added]. Letter to Nature ―Humans have engaged in endurance running for millions of years, but the modern running