by Rose Hendricks, Ph.D. candidate. Published: January 10, 2017
We humans have collectively accumulated a lot of science knowledge. We’ve developed vaccines that can eradicate some of the most devastating diseases. We’ve engineered bridges and cities and the internet. We’ve created massive metal vehicles that rise tens of thousands of feet and then safely set down on the other side of the globe. And this is just the tip of the iceberg (which, by the way, we’ve discovered is melting). While this shared knowledge is impressive, it’s not distributed evenly. Not even close. There are too many important issues that science has reached a consensus on that the public has not.
Scientists and the media need to communicate more science and communicate it better. Good communication ensures that scientific progress benefits society, bolsters democracy, weakens the potency of fake news and misinformation, and fulfills researchers’ responsibility to engage with the public. Such beliefs have motivated training programs, workshops, and a research agenda from the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine on learning more about science communication. A resounding question remains for science communicators: What can we do better?
A common intuition is that the main goal of science communication is to present facts; once people encounter those facts, they will think and behave accordingly. The National Academies’ recent report refers to this as the “deficit model.”
But in reality, just knowing facts doesn’t necessarily guarantee that one’s opinions and behaviors will be consistent with them. For example, many people “know” that recycling is beneficial but still throw plastic bottles in the trash. Or they read an online article by a scientist about the necessity of vaccines but leave comments expressing outrage that doctors are trying to further a pro-vaccine agenda. Convincing people that scientific evidence has merit and should guide behavior may be the greatest science communication challenge, particularly in our “post-truth” era.
Luckily, we know a lot about human psychology – how people perceive, reason, and learn about the world – and many lessons from psychology can be applied to science communication endeavors.
Regardless of your religious affiliation, imagine that you’ve always learned that God created human beings just as we are today. Your parents, teachers, and books all told you so. You’ve also noticed throughout your life that science is pretty useful – you especially love heating up a frozen dinner in the microwave while browsing Snapchat on your iPhone.
One day you read that scientists have evidence for human evolution. You feel uncomfortable: Were your parents, teachers, and books wrong about where people originally came from? Are these scientists wrong? You experience cognitive dissonance – the uneasiness that results from entertaining two conflicting ideas.
Psychologist Leon Festinger first articulated the theory of cognitive dissonance in 1957, noting that it’s human nature to be uncomfortable with maintaining two conflicting beliefs at the same time. That discomfort leads us to try to reconcile the competing ideas we come across. Regardless of political leaning, we’re hesitant to accept new information that contradicts our existing worldviews.
One way we subconsciously avoid cognitive dissonance is through confirmation bias – a tendency to seek information that confirms what we already believe and discard information that doesn’t.
This human tendency was first exposed by psychologist Peter Wason in the 1960s in a simple logic experiment. He found that people tend to seek confirmatory information and avoid information that would potentially disprove their beliefs.
The concept of confirmation bias scales up to larger issues, too. For example, psychologists John Cook and Stephen Lewandowsky asked people about their beliefs concerning global warming and then gave them information stating that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity causes climate change. The researchers measured whether the information about the scientific consensus influenced people’s beliefs about global warming.
Those who initially opposed the idea of human-caused global warming became even less accepting after reading about the scientific consensus on the issue. People who had already believed that human actions cause global warming supported their position even more strongly after learning about the scientific consensus. Presenting these participants with factual information ended up further polarizing their views, strengthening everyone’s resolve in their initial positions. It was a case of confirmation bias at work: New information consistent with prior beliefs strengthened those beliefs; new information conflicting with existing beliefs led people to discredit the message as a way to hold on to their original position.
How can science communicators share their messages in a way that leads people to change their beliefs and actions about important science issues, given our natural cognitive biases?
The first step is to acknowledge that every audience has preexisting beliefs about the world. Expect those beliefs to color the way they receive your message. Anticipate that people will accept information that is consistent with their prior beliefs and discredit information that is not.
Then, focus on framing. No message can contain all the information available on a topic, so any communication will emphasize some aspects while downplaying others. While it’s unhelpful to cherry-pick and present only evidence in your favor – which can backfire anyway – it is helpful to focus on what an audience cares about.
For example, these University of California researchers point out that the idea of climate change causing rising sea levels may not alarm an inland farmer dealing with drought as much as it does someone living on the coast. Referring to the impact our actions today may have on our grandchildren might be more compelling to those who actually have grandchildren (or anticipate having grandchildren in the future) than to those who don’t. By anticipating what an audience believes and what’s important to them, communicators can choose more effective frames for their messages – focusing on the most compelling aspects of the issue for their audience and presenting it in a way the audience can identify with.
In addition to the ideas expressed in a frame, the specific words used matter. Psychologists Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman first showed when numerical information is presented in different ways, people think about it differently. Here’s an example from their 1981 study:
Imagine that the U.S. is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimate of the consequences of the programs are as follows: If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. If Program B is adopted, there is ⅓ probability that 600 people will be saved, and ⅔ probability that no people will be saved.
Both programs have an expected value of 200 lives saved. But 72 percent of participants chose Program A. We reason about mathematically equivalent options differently when they’re framed differently: Our intuitions are often not consistent with probabilities and other math concepts.
Metaphors can also act as linguistic frames. Psychologists Paul Thibodeau and Lera Boroditsky found that people who read that crime is a beast proposed different solutions than those who read that crime is a virus – even if they had no memory of reading the metaphor. The metaphors guided people’s reasoning, encouraging them to transfer solutions they’d propose for real beasts (cage them) or viruses (find the source) to dealing with crime (harsher law enforcement or more social programs).
The words we use to package our ideas can drastically influence how people think about those ideas.
We have a lot to learn. Quantitative research on the efficacy of science communication strategies is in its infancy but becoming an increasing priority. As we continue to untangle more about what works and why, it’s important for science communicators to be conscious of the biases they and their audiences bring to their exchanges and the frames they select to share their messages.
https://theconversation.com/getting-a-scientific-message-across-means-taking-human-nature-into-account-70634
Logging in, please wait...
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Although we have accumulated a lot of knowledge, we don’t seem to pay attention to it 100% of the time.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with this because scientists need to raise their voices and tell people the facts rather than some knock of TikTok scientists explaining how the vaccine works to the world. They should communicate more with the world rather than researching and experimenting with the ideas within their group.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree with this statement because, most of the time these days, people rely on famous individuals rather than facts. People will disregard scientifically established facts and believe something to be true if it becomes widely known.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment Hide Thread Detail
People will believe anyone if they are persuaded enough, not just famous people. Other than that, I pretty much agree with your comment.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Without having a complete understanding of a fact, people might not be inclined to believe it to the fullest extent by acting on it. In the case of a fact that highlights a global issue, some choose not to change their behavior when it would be beneficial without an understanding of how it would affect their own well-being.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Understanding is different from agreeing with, and is overshadowed if ideas contradict current beliefs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I think this statement makes a lot of sense. With the amount of information out there today, you still see people going against scientific discoveries due to their personal beliefs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I definitely do agree that this is something difficult. As much as I let science guide the way I go about certain things, I don’t think it should be forced and stuffed onto people. That entire idea comes off as a bit unethical.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Why is that? I understand context matters in a situation like that but I genuinely don’t understand why we tend to go to the middle ground when we almost always have a near-complete opinion. I’m someone who has definitely done this and I wonder why that’s our go-to, especially when later on I regret it and makeup ideas of what I really should’ve done and whatnot.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Those who deny the facts are idiots. There is obviously sufficient evidence presented to rule out any attempt to dispute the facts.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
If there is evidence for something and it is good evidence even if it goes against what you believe then you are probably wrong so you should believe in the evidence.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
People tend to disregard information and facts that oppose their ideas. Either that, or they interpret that information in a way to support their idea and make them seem right instead. Regardless, they do not have the intention of changing their mind.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Seems pretty insane to me personally. I feel that when brought enough evidence on something we should catch on and start to at least think more in an open-minded way.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
For people that already have a belief or agenda, being presented with information that completely disproves it causes confusion for someone. Those who became more opposed to the facts presented to them on global warming avoided uncomfortable feelings of uncertainty that come with conflicting information by opposing beliefs. This provides peace of mind and is a result of our nature as humans to seek out information that supports our beliefs.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
It’s harder to process information, if information clashes with current beliefs, dismantling everything and reconstructing.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Most humans feel self-righteous about the positions they take. stubbornness or confirmation bias is what makes humans stick to a certain position even if it had been proven wrong. Not many people acknowledge when they are wrong. When they do, it is not likely for them to admit they are wrong anyway.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
When put into an example like this, I fully understood how much framing can impact the perception of information. I learned that I must be more open minded and think harder when being presented with data because the way it is framed can affect the extent to which I believe it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
W take
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
I agree, since how we communicate our ideas to others often alters how they view the same ideas.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
As for one can be interpreted differently, often giving out the wrong information. Words can also be used to appeal to one set group, while negatively affecting the other.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Choice of words matters. Stating something is bad for you versus saying it’s horrendous for your health are two similar ideas phrased in completely different ways. The way we phrase something can have an effect on how large we can influence or persuade another individual.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
By presenting ideas in a way that shows one that believing in this would be beneficial to them, a person is more inclined to be accepting of that fact. The articulation is key to getting society to acknowledge it.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Obviously word choice is everything when telling someone about an opinion you have, especially if it’s an opposing opinion but I don’t think that should make you pander to them. I feel you should state how you feel in your own way.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
Perspective and interpretation go hand in hand with the way someone receives knowledge. So,the way in which we communicate our ideas is important because it can heavily change the way someone interprets and acknowledges them.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
I agree with this statement because the way we communicate can focus a person’s attention on viewing things in a different way. Words can also have an impact on people based on the way we influence or persuade someone’s ideas.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
New Conversation
New Conversation
New Conversation
Word choices and tone matter when trying to persuade or influence someone. Using negative connotations of words can make people have a negative view of your approach. That can ultimately make people deter from your ideas or cling to their own beliefs even more.
New Conversation
Hide Full Comment
General Document Comments 0