tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/framing-36493/articlesFraming – The Conversation2019-12-16T15:58:08Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1287442019-12-16T15:58:08Z2019-12-16T15:58:08ZClimate change: three ways to market the science to reach the sceptics<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307157/original/file-20191216-124031-8hvxex.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C0%2C5228%2C3025&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">There's more than one way to frame the science of climate change.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/nKNrOZ5MXZY">Vlad Tchompalov/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Climate change sceptics may be a minority, but they are a sizeable one. One in five Americans <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/may/07/us-hotbed-climate-change-denial-international-poll.">think that climate change is a myth</a>, or that humans aren’t responsible for it. What’s more, <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2015/11/05/global-concern-about-climate-change-broad-support-for-limiting-emissions/">they’re backed up by many</a> in the Middle East and parts of Asia, especially China. They’re a <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2015/mar/05/doubt-over-climate-science-is-a-product-with-an-industry-behind-it">vocal minority too</a> – and with the <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45859325">ear of the US president</a>, they are therefore a serious obstacle to collective climate action.</p>
<p>So what can we do about them?</p>
<p>You might think that the answer is more or better science education. The more you know about climate science, the more likely you will be to think that climate change is real.</p>
<p>But the science says that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2016/10/04/public-knowledge-about-science-has-a-limited-tie-to-peoples-beliefs-about-climate-change-and-climate-scientists/">this isn’t true</a>. If you want to predict what someone’s attitude to climate change is, you are better off asking them about their politics than about science. In fact, in the US, the more numerate and scientifically literate a Republican you are, <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate1547">the more sceptical you are about climate change</a>.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/our-political-beliefs-predict-how-we-feel-about-climate-change-69435">Our political beliefs predict how we feel about climate change</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>What climate science really needs is better marketing. Researchers might think that the science sells itself. But, while people might trust scientists in general, the <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2017/12/08/mixed-messages-about-public-trust-in-science/">picture is more mixed</a> when it comes to politically charged issues such as climate change. With many <a href="https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/12/donald-trump-climate-change-skeptic-denial/510359/">politicians actively persuading people</a> that the science isn’t that serious, we need to persuade people that these politicians are wrong and the climate scientists are right.</p>
<p>And luckily, there are three key marketing tools we can use to do so.</p>
<h2>Fit the frame</h2>
<p>Think about how climate change is framed. We are <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-climate-is-like-reckless-banking-before-the-crash-its-time-to-talk-about-near-term-collapse-128374">usually asked</a> what we as individuals, businesses, and states can do to <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/">reduce the carbon emissions</a> that are undoubtedly but imperceptibly heating up the planet. Given that these emissions have <a href="https://www.degrowth.info/en/2015/10/the-decoupling-debate-can-economic-growth-really-continue-without-emission-increases/">powered the global economy’s growth over the last century</a>, this narrative can sometimes be perceived as pitting science against free market economics and our desire to lead our lives as we choose.</p>
<p>This framing <a href="https://theconversation.com/to-get-conservative-climate-contrarians-to-really-listen-try-speaking-their-language-94296/">doesn’t work for all audiences</a>. Just as a good marketer fits their message to their audience, a good science communicator will understand that when communicating an issue so broad and that affects so many, it makes sense to frame climate change in different ways to different groups of people.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307160/original/file-20191216-124031-5pr3ma.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Framing acting on climate change as a duty to care for the planet is more likely to resonate with religious communities.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/two-hands-holding-caring-young-green-179410019">wk1003mike/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For example, framing climate change as an opportunity for technological innovation <a href="https://www.universetoday.com/108799/why-people-resist-the-notion-of-climate-change">helps keep staunch defenders of the free market on side</a>, minimising political resistance to climate action. Framing climate change as a <a href="https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/2019-05081-001">“stewardship” issue</a> – that is, a sacred duty to care for the Earth – may help get religious believers on side.</p>
<h2>Don’t debunk, prebunk</h2>
<p>Debunks of climate myths <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-climate-change-science-misconceptions-debunked-122570">abound on the internet</a>. But debunking misinformation is tricky, because once a piece of informatin has entered someone’s mind, it’s <a href="https://skepticalscience.com/docs/Debunking_Handbook.pdf">hard to dislodge</a> it – especially if the information confirms previously held beliefs.</p>
<p>An alternative strategy is <a href="http://theconversation.com/inoculation-theory-using-misinformation-to-fight-misinformation-77545">“prebunking”</a>. Inspired by <a href="https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/inoculate-public-misinformation-climate-change/">inoculation theory</a> – the idea that it is better to a prevent a disease than to treat it – prebunking aims to prevent misinformation from spreading in the first place, rather than debunk it once it has spread.</p>
<p>This can be done by identifying common argumentative strategies used by climate change sceptics, such as spurious <a href="https://climatefeedback.org/evaluation/letter-signed-by-500-scientists-relies-on-inaccurate-claims-about-climate-science/">appeals to expertise</a> or exaggerations about the <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jcom.12171">uncertainties</a> in climate models, and explaining why they are dodgy.</p>
<p>Of course, this information needs to reach the right people. Much like protection against disease, the most effective inoculation starts in childhood, with education. <a href="https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017AGUFMED42A..06B/abstract">Misconception-based learning</a>, an approach which sets out to avoid misconceptions, provides a framework for doing this. Climate breakdown is not a flash in the pan problem, and our strategies to combat it need to be designed for the long haul.</p>
<h2>Master the messenger</h2>
<p>Finally, it’s important to focus not just on the message, but the messenger too. We would rather listen to people who <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3162009">share</a> our political views than “experts” who disagree with us. This means that if you want to effectively communicate a pro-science message, you need to have people from different corners of the political spectrum making the case.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=401&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/307182/original/file-20191216-124022-cdtk1f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Greta Thunberg can’t reach everyone. But there are an increasing number of more conservative politicians backing action on climate change.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/portland-pdx-oregon-september-20-2019-1510628321">Robert P. Alvarez/Shutterstock</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>It’s great that activists like Greta Thunberg are spreading the word, but not everyone wants to listen to them, and there are politically diverse groups out there who share the same message. For instance, when he was president Barack Obama <a href="https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/blog/2015/07/22/champions-change-people-faith-acting-climate">reached out to religious leaders</a>, who played an <a href="https://qz.com/1709793/evangelical-leaders-are-making-climate-change-a-religious-issue/">active role</a> in promoting environmental issues in their communities.</p>
<h2>Marketing isn’t always a bad thing</h2>
<p>Marketing is manipulative. It can try to trick us into buying things we don’t want. So using it to sell climate science and interfere with our basic right to make up our own minds might seem suspect.</p>
<p>But it’s important to remember that while climate change is a contentious political issue, its effects are real and severe no matter what you, I or anyone else think. We have the right to decide how or even whether to change our behaviour in light of a destabilising climate. But we don’t have the right to decide that our actions have no impact on the climate. As the saying goes, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/11/opinion/sunday/daniel-patrick-moynihan.html">we are not entitled to our own facts</a>.</p>
<p>What’s more, there is a difference between the aims of marketers and those of scientists trying to communicate with the public. The marketer wants to sell us stuff. The scientist wants us to break through our <a href="https://theconversation.com/climate-explained-why-are-climate-change-skeptics-often-right-wing-conservatives-123549">ideological biases</a>and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/05/climate-change-apathy-not-denial-threat-planet">apathy</a> to engage with the truth.</p>
<p>The strategies I have outlined are designed to create the conditions for these breakthroughs. They don’t detract from our ability to make up our own minds. In fact, they may enhance it, precisely because they neuter our ideological biases. Sometimes, we need a little help to think for ourselves.</p>
<p>Of course, good marketing is no guarantee of a sale. Even if scientists use these methods, climate change sceptics may refuse to buy it. But good marketers also don’t give up. If these methods don’t work, we can always look for some other ones.</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=140&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/263883/original/file-20190314-28475-1mzxjur.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=176&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p><em><a href="https://theconversation.com/imagine-newsletter-researchers-think-of-a-world-with-climate-action-113443?utm_source=TCUK&utm_medium=linkback&utm_campaign=TCUKengagement&utm_content=Imagineheader1128744">Click here to subscribe to our climate action newsletter. Climate change is inevitable. Our response to it isn’t.</a></em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/128744/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin McKenna does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The science says that more or better climate education won’t convince sceptics. Here’s what we can do instead.Robin McKenna, Lecturer in Philosophy, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1204762019-09-27T11:18:28Z2019-09-27T11:18:28ZClimate change is really about prosperity, peace, public health and posterity – not saving the environment<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292050/original/file-20190911-190007-1dinxgt.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=247%2C555%2C4490%2C2778&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What will it take to get people to connect to the climate change story?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/31-pOduwZGE">mauro mora/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The story of climate change is one that people have struggled to tell convincingly for more than two decades. But it’s not for lack of trying.</p>
<p>The problem is emphatically not a lack of facts and figures. The world’s best scientific minds have produced <a href="https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/">blockbuster report</a> after <a href="https://nca2018.globalchange.gov">blockbuster report</a>, setting out in ever more terrifying detail just how much of an impact we humans have had on the Earth since the dawn of the industrial revolution. Many people believe anthropogenic climate change – rapid and far-reaching shifts in the climate caused by human activity – is now the story that will define the 21st century, whether anyone’s good at telling it or not.</p>
<p>Nor is it merely a problem of delivery. The past decade has witnessed an explosion of climate change communication efforts spanning nearly every conceivable medium, channel and messenger. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Documentary_films_about_global_warming">Documentaries</a>, popular books and articles, interactive websites, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02364">immersive virtual reality</a>, community events — all are being used in increasingly creative ways to communicate the story of climate change. Many of these efforts are beautifully designed and executed, <a href="https://climatevisuals.org">visually</a> and narratively engaging and careful to avoid <a href="http://www.frameworksinstitute.org/assets/files/PDF_oceansclimate/climatechangeandtheocean_mm_final_2015.pdf">common traps</a> and <a href="http://www.connectingonclimate.org">shortcomings</a> that have tripped up previous efforts. </p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uvg8JNYAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">As communications</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=uJAO-o0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">specialists who</a> have each spent more than a decade observing and studying how people, media and organizations talk and think about climate change, we’ve come to understand that the climate change communication problem runs much deeper: It’s baked into the nature of the issue itself.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=600&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292059/original/file-20190911-190007-vzoz5w.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=754&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">It’s hard for a single person to connect with a global-scale problem.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://images.nasa.gov/details-PIA18033.html">JPL/NASA</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Climate change is abstract, uncertain, unfamiliar, impersonal, diffuse and seemingly distant, even as the <a href="https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/1/">frequency of climate-related events</a> continues to increase in many parts of the world. This is not to say that the <a href="https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org">well-documented and well-funded</a> efforts to sow misinformation, doubt and denial aren’t also real challenges facing climate change communicators and advocates; of course they are. </p>
<p>But even without explicit efforts to confuse and divide the public, climate change would still be a uniquely challenging issue to talk about in ways that motivate public engagement rather than inspire despair and fatalism.</p>
<p>The sad irony, of course, is that the story of climate change is in fact a deeply human one – we caused it, we will suffer from it and we alone can take action to avoid its worst consequences and prepare for the rest.</p>
<p>But shifting climate change from a scientific reality to a social, economic and political reality has proven extremely difficult. This is still primarily an “<a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/Climate_Change_American_Mind_April_2019c.pdf">environmental</a>” issue in many people’s minds, and that is a real problem for building a broad-based social movement around climate change.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=338&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292062/original/file-20190911-190007-19dehox.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=424&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What other health and security benefits come with tackling climate change?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/xQACy9OiEEU">sergio souza/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Solve additional problems by tackling the first</h2>
<p>Over the past few years, one suggested solution around this communications roadblock has been to tell the story of what are called climate change co-benefits.</p>
<p>The idea is simple and compelling: If the public won’t or can’t get behind climate action for climate’s sake, maybe they will if all the many nonenvironmental benefits of reducing carbon emissions are brought to the foreground. Hence, climate change as a threat to <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/climateandhealth/effects/default.htm">public health</a>, to <a href="https://www.wri.org/our-work/project/world-resources-report/climate-change-adaptation-and-national-security">national security</a>, to <a href="https://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2017/wp152_2017.pdf">social mobility</a>. </p>
<p>Traditional co-benefits framing tells the story like this: If humanity does something about climate change – if we reduce carbon emissions through massive investments in renewable energy and retrofitting of inefficient buildings, if we improve resilience through investing in green infrastructure, nature-based solutions and all the rest – we will not only solve the climate change problem, we’ll also reduce economic inequality, improve public health, reduce threats to national sovereignty and geo-political stability, and generally make people’s lives better.</p>
<p>These and many other co-benefits of aggressive and proactive action on climate change <a href="http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/publication/multiple-benefits-from-climate-change-mitigation-assessing-the-evidence/">are real</a>, and they will very much improve the lives of billions of people living on this planet today and in the future. But is this the best way to talk about the issue in service of building a powerful social movement?</p>
<p>The problem with the standard co-benefits narrative isn’t that it distracts too much from the core climate change challenge (it doesn’t), nor that it is somehow manipulative (it’s not) or simply <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2948">not necessary</a> (it is).</p>
<p>We suggest the problem is that it still leaves too much of the focus on climate change as an environmental or scientific issue while relegating all the other things people often care more about – addressing rampant inequality, increasing access to affordable health care, improving people’s material and emotional lives – to the background.</p>
<p>Leading with “if you really cared about your pet issue, then climate change should be your priority” is neither welcoming and inclusive nor likely to succeed in building a broad base of support for aggressive action on climate. Condescension rarely wins converts. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=398&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/292066/original/file-20190911-190035-1ygwtlc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=500&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A wind farm promotes human health – and just happens to benefit the climate?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://unsplash.com/photos/4ac-ws3gPuQ">Brandon Hoogenboom/Unsplash</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Rethink which benefit drives the story</h2>
<p>But that doesn’t mean advocates should necessarily give up on co-benefits. Maybe they just need to flip the script on its head – to lead with and keep the focus on the nonclimate benefits of aggressive decarbonization and adaptation efforts. Maybe “addressing climate change” should be treated as the co-benefit rather than the leading motivation for action that could materially help billions of people, today and in the future.</p>
<p>Ultimately, the most effective long-term approach to getting diverse audiences to engage deeply with climate change may require that advocates stop treating it as a standalone problem that could benefit from being linked to other topics many people care more about. Instead, advocates may need to fundamentally rethink and alter the way they talk about and position climate change as an issue in the first place.</p>
<p>If climate change is now becoming a <a href="https://www.palgrave.com/gp/book/9783319693828">meta-narrative</a> against which all other stories play out, perhaps no one needs to argue that decarbonization of the global economy will produce some health benefits or improve people’s well-being. Perhaps the best strategy is to simply say that climate change is a health risk, a risk to peace and prosperity, a risk to humanity’s survival – that the climate change story is our story as a species.</p>
<p>This is not about mobilizing the muscle of co-benefits to make the climate change narrative more robust or appealing. It’s about merging the co-benefits and climate change itself so thoroughly that they become one and the same.</p>
<p>[ <em>Like what you’ve read? Want more?</em> <a href="https://theconversation.com/us/newsletters?utm_source=TCUS&utm_medium=inline-link&utm_campaign=newsletter-text&utm_content=likethis">Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter</a>. ]</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120476/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ezra Markowitz has received funding from the National Science Foundation, United States Geological Survey, and National Institute of Food and Agriculture. He is affiliated with the FrameWorks Institute.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Adam Corner, via Climate Outreach, receives/has received funding from UK Research Councils including the Economic and Social Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council. Climate Outreach is/has been funded by a variety of philanthropic foundations, including the KR Foundation and the European Climate Foundation. </span></em></p>Decarbonizing the global economy would help the climate change problem – but also many others. Would putting all those additional co-benefits center stage help drum up support for climate action?Ezra Markowitz, Associate Professor of Environmental Decision-Making, UMass AmherstAdam Corner, Research Director at Climate Outreach & Honorary Research Fellow in Psychology, Cardiff UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1179582019-06-10T21:22:44Z2019-06-10T21:22:44ZThe urgent need for media literacy in an age of annihilation<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278421/original/file-20190606-98027-ps6fdg.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Media critic and educator Neil Postman's 1985 book 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' warned of the dangers when all media is entertainment, especially when people lack critical media literacy skills.
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>From fictitious organizations posting polarizing messages on Facebook to robustly researched news stories being labelled “fake,” the pervasive power and importance of the media are clear. </p>
<p>And yet what is most concerning is not that fictitious stories are being shared as “real” and well-researched stories are labelled “fake.” Rather, the biggest problem is the lack of stories about how to thoughtfully address the situation <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/world/canada/foreign-election-interference-social-media.html">not only through media regulation</a> but also through education. </p>
<p>By focusing on <a href="https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/facebook-grand-committee-tuesday-1.5152436">media challenges one at a time as they arise</a>, an opportunity is being missed to address the media’s messages and power systemically. Instead, in something akin to a “whack-a-mole” game, problems with social media are treated as isolated issues that keep popping up. Facebook becomes a go-to destination for those wishing to sway an election? <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/facebooks-role-in-trumps-win-is-clear-no-matter-what-mark-zuckerberg-says/2017/09/07/b5006c1c-93c7-11e7-89fa-bb822a46da5b_story.html?utm_term=.98dbdb4cc3b7">Tell stories that blame Mark Zuckerberg</a>. Twitter becomes a platform for lies? <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/the-twitter-president-how-potus-changed-social-media-and-the-presidency-a8164161.html">Tell stories that call out Donald Trump</a>. </p>
<p>But what the media doesn’t show us and doesn’t tell about the world — and those with whom we share it — is just as important as what the media does show and tell. In my article <a href="https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/3058/3285">“Creating iPhone Dreams, Annihilating E-waste Nightmares,”</a> I find that news coverage about cell phones is robust but news coverage about electronic waste is almost nonexistent. Communication theorists have a name for what happens to stories that are not told: <a href="https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/26/2/172/4553823?redirectedFrom=fulltext">symbolic annihilation</a>. That means it is impossible to even imagine nonexistent narratives as realities. But how might our society, collectively, think differently not just about social media challenges but all media messages? Media literacy is the solution. </p>
<h2>Framing the world</h2>
<p>In the 21st century, a story can arrive in myriad forms — a news article can appear in a hard copy newspaper, on a laptop or a phone — but stories are always a product of what cultural theorists <a href="https://www.cjc-online.ca/index.php/journal/article/view/2017/3107">call framing</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=275&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277767/original/file-20190604-69091-1m6qt10.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=345&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Today, a story can arrive in myriad forms.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Communications scholar <a href="http://toddgitlin.net/">Todd Gitlin</a> draws on sociologist <a href="http://people.brandeis.edu/%7Eteuber/goffmanbio.html">Erving Goffman</a>, the founder of framing theory, when he writes in his book <a href="https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520239326/the-whole-world-is-watching"><em>The Whole World Is Watching: Mass Media in the Making and Unmaking of the New Left</em></a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“Media frames are persistent patterns of cognition, interpretation, and presentation, of selection, emphasis and exclusion.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Goffman says that all media content is the result of choices about what stories to tell, in what ways, and with what details — and which stories to ignore. </p>
<p>Stories can be framed to include rigorous research and a nuanced approach to sharing thoughtful and diverse points of view. Stories can also be framed without research and offer a narrow, limited, perspective. But <em>all</em> stories imply realities about the authority behind the story and about the listener, reader and viewer. </p>
<h2>Role of the media</h2>
<p>There has been concern for decades about <a href="https://fernwoodpublishing.ca/book/television-and-the-earth">how the media frames the world for us</a>. One of the most compelling articulations of this concern is in Neil Postman’s 1985 book <em><a href="https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/297276/amusing-ourselves-to-death-by-neil-postman/9780143036531/">Amusing Ourselves To Death</a></em>.</p>
<p>Postman’s thesis was that the media frames all content as entertainment and “when a population becomes distracted by trivia, when cultural life is redefined as a perpetual round of entertainments, when serious public conversation becomes a form of baby-talk, when, in short, a people become an audience, and their public business a vaudeville act, then a nation finds itself at risk….” </p>
<p>His recommendation? Media literacy — the ability to think critically about the creation, sources, content and consequences of all media messages.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=370&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/277893/original/file-20190604-69055-3u8w8j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=465&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Media literacy is the ability to think critically about the creation and consequences of all media messages.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">(Shutterstock)</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Unfortunately, while it’s common today to see stories about <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakdoffman/2019/04/18/facebook-illegally-harvested-data-from-1-5m-users-as-it-leveraged-its-data-machine/#6dad32116a2e">privacy breaches</a>, <a href="https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2056305118776010">contentions of fakery</a> or <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/30/opinion/online-trolling-empathy.html">hatred-spewing trolls</a>, there are few stories about media literacy. </p>
<h2>Rarely discussed: Media literacy</h2>
<p>According to the Canadian Newsstand database, which searches more than 20 of Canada’s largest newspapers, in the first five months of 2019, newspapers shared just over 21,000 stories that discussed “Twitter,” 4,200 newspaper stories that talked about “Facebook” and 355 stories that discussed “fake news.” The number of Canadian newspaper stories in the past five months that included “media literacy?” Fifteen.</p>
<p>The international situation is similar. According to the Lexis Nexis Major World Newspapers database, which searches the world’s largest newspapers, in the first five months of 2019 there were more than 8,600 newspaper headlines that included “Twitter,” close to 4,000 newspaper headlines with “Facebook” and 500 newspaper headlines that included “fake news.” The number of newspaper headlines that included “media literacy?” Three.</p>
<p>The linguist and cognitive scientist <a href="https://georgelakoff.com">George Lakoff</a> points out that without frames, we are unable to form the thoughts. He uses the term <a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17524030903529749">“hypocognition”</a> to explain the implications for a lack of frames for a concept. </p>
<h2>Regulation increasingly ineffective</h2>
<p>Policies and laws to police media content have become increasingly ineffective. As a February <em>Telegraph</em> article mentions: “<a href="https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/02/02/snopes-quits-facebooks-fact-checking-programme-saying-has-become/">Two important partners in Facebook’s flagship anti-fake news project have pulled out</a>, with staff at one saying it has become ‘impossible’ to manage the workload.” </p>
<p>Policing Facebook, and arguably all digital content, may be a losing battle. But discussing and prioritizing the urgency of creating a media-literate citizenry — and implementing the essential education — might stand a chance. </p>
<p>As Postman points out, schools must help young people learn how to interpret what he calls symbols of their culture. <a href="https://theconversation.com/testing-literacy-today-requires-more-than-a-pencil-and-paper-114154">Media literacy</a> should be a fundamental component of education <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-analyzing-patterns-helps-students-spot-deceptive-media-110490">through all levels of schooling</a>. Reading. Writing. Arithmetic. </p>
<p>Students, indeed all of us, must learn to ask questions about what stories are told. We must learn to ask questions about whose interests are served by the ways in which stories are framed. And we must learn to ask questions about the implications for stories not being told. </p>
<p>There is an urgency to not only consistently but also reflexively asking these questions.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/117958/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jennifer Ellen Good does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Students – and indeed all of us – must learn to ask questions about what stories are told, and the implications of what stories are not being told.Jennifer Ellen Good, Associate Professor Communication, Popular Culture and Film, Brock UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1111472019-04-16T10:46:25Z2019-04-16T10:46:25ZWhat it means to ‘know your audience’ when communicating about science<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267853/original/file-20190405-180036-19aamqc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=1625%2C745%2C4365%2C3206&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">You have a lot of work to do before you step up to the mic.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Chinnapong/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Communication experts love to tell people to know their audience, but it is not always clear what they’re meant to know.</p>
<p>Knowing someone’s age, education and gender is nice. So too is knowing context about economic, educational, cultural and ideological background. These are typically what the two of us hear when <a href="http://strategicsciencecommunication.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Landscape-Overview-Website-Discussion-Final.pdf">we’ve asked science communication trainers</a> what they think the expression means. </p>
<p>Knowing such things are helpful, but there’s a lot more a strategic communicator might want to know.</p>
<p><a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=0ssM57wAAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">Our own</a> <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=WHQF1CUAAAAJ&hl=en">ongoing research</a> on <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662517728478">strategic science communication objectives</a> suggests some more targeted pieces of information that could help communicators – whether scientists or anyone else – effectively share their message.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=368&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266172/original/file-20190327-139356-a7cv19.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=463&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Choosing to take part in a particular event suggests certain things about attendees.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/nrcs_south_dakota/8267472111">USDA NRCS South Dakota/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Know your audience by picking your audience</h2>
<p>To start, if you’re being strategic, you should know something about your audience because you should have picked who you’re communicating with based on your goals.</p>
<p>In general, the hope is that experts like the scientists we study would have shifted valuable time or resources from their regular work to communication because there’s some sort of behavior they want to see in some specific group or groups. The behavior could be individual – things such as drinking less, buying greener products, choosing a science career – or civic – behaviors such as supporting, opposing or disregarding an issue.</p>
<p>No communicator – including scientists – should spend limited time, money and opportunity on audiences that aren’t a priority given their goals. It will rarely make sense to spend resources trying to get an arch-liberal to donate to the National Rifle Association or a diehard lover of science to embrace science even more.</p>
<p>Once you know what you want to accomplish and who you want to accomplish it with, you’re a lot closer to figuring out what you need to know about your audience.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=400&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/267855/original/file-20190405-180036-1xvklaf.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=503&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Audiences aren’t obligated to hang on your every word.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/microphone-voice-speaker-seminar-classroom-lecture-534042616">Monkey Business Images/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>What does your audience think and feel?</h2>
<p>The next step is figuring something out about the target audience’s beliefs, feelings or way of framing a topic. It is these beliefs, feelings and frames that can change and it is these changes that will increase the odds an audience will meaningfully consider your hoped-for behavior.</p>
<p>The most common types of beliefs that the scientists we study like to share are those related to the knowledge they’re creating through their research. This might be something about new evidence connecting how rising greenhouse gases are changing the climate, a lack of connection between vaccines and risk, or any other new finding. This preference seems to stem from scientists’ belief that their audience has a crucial gap in its knowledge or way of thinking.</p>
<p>Increasing basic knowledge sometimes gets dismissed in science communication circles; there’s little evidence that <a href="https://www.nap.edu/read/23595/chapter/1">information-focused initiatives</a> work very well. More and more facts rarely produce substantial behavioral changes. Worse, although researchers haven’t carefully tested it, anyone who’s sat through a boring lecture can probably attest to the fact that sharing too much technical detail can turn an audience off.</p>
<p>On the other hand, most audiences probably expect to hear about experts’ work and so experts likely need to share some information about what they’re finding or they risk failing to meet people’s expectations.</p>
<p>Just as importantly, there are many other facts beyond those associated with technical knowledge that communicators could ethically want people to come to believe.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=687&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/266175/original/file-20190327-139349-p135i5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=863&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Expressing shared values can help build trust and connection.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dvids/5447684077">DVIDSHUB/Spc. Tobey White/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>For the topics we study, it might be helpful to really know, for example, if an audience believes the research team is <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119206422.ch21">competent, honest, caring</a>, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2015.1118149">open</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/0272-4332.216173">similar to them</a> when it comes to values. If this is not how the scientists are perceived, it’s important to know so the communicator can make communication choices that give the audience a chance to learn a bit more about the team – assuming they do embody these characteristics.</p>
<p>This might mean sharing a bit about their credentials and the sophisticated effort that went into the pertinent research, the motives that drive the team or what they do to make sure they’re always listening to others’ views.</p>
<p>These trust-related communication objectives may be particularly important for making it more likely that someone <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-1952-5_10">will pay attention and think about what you have to say</a>. For example, audience members may lack the motivation to truly listen to someone that they believe is dishonest or incompetent.</p>
<p>Similarly, if the goal is to promote behaviors, it helps to know what the audience thinks about those behaviors. Do they believe in the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2016.01.003">risks or benefits</a> of what the research suggests? Which do they think about most? And what do they <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.11.012">think their family and friends think and do</a> – what social psychologists call subjective and descriptive norms? Do they think they even have the <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662515595348">ability to do what’s being suggested</a> or believe that doing so will make a difference?</p>
<p>It may also be important to know <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2005.04.006">how the audience feels</a>, what <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13282">emotions are driving behavior</a> and how they <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23">mentally frame the issue</a>.</p>
<h2>You can’t know everything about your audience</h2>
<p>Of course it’s impossible to know everything about your audience. You can make educated bets – and you can also ask for help from a communication expert or longtime leader in your organization or a group you belong to. In our area of study, these might be the public information officers at universities or scientific societies. They want to help and the good ones are constantly tracking stakeholder views on various issues you might want to address.</p>
<p>There are also many things you probably can’t change about your audience through communication – like an individual’s core values – although these can affect how what you communicate gets interpreted. And that’s why you have to prioritize by being clear on your goals and starting with an understanding of your audience. Communication theory and formative research are meant to <a href="https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/public-communication-campaigns/book234975">help with such strategizing</a>.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/111147/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley receives or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the United States Department of Agriculture (MICL02468), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Anthony Dudo receives funding or has received funding from the National Science Foundation (AISL 1421214-1421723), the Albert and Mary Lasker Foundation, the John Templeton Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David & Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to this article. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations. </span></em></p>Connecting with an audience in a productive way can mean first figuring out what they think, feel and believe before you start sharing your message.John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityAnthony Dudo, Associate Professor of Advertising and Public Relations, The University of Texas at AustinLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1083022019-01-11T11:47:19Z2019-01-11T11:47:19ZCalling it a ‘war on science’ has consequences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253345/original/file-20190111-43514-1bk1dyx.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=825%2C288%2C4398%2C3252&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How does the concept of science in the crosshairs affect opinions?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/rifle-target-view-on-natural-background-1213560445?src=wVuFWODDgQa43JDOMEBpzA-1-4">gan chaonan/Shutterstock.com</a></span></figcaption></figure><figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=873&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253327/original/file-20190110-43520-1g8i86f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1096&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">What happens when a cover boils a measured article down to this provocative headline?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/content/dam/magazine/rights-exempt/2015/03/2015-03-cover.ngsversion.1498924841260.adapt.1900.1.jpg">National Geographic</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>National Geographic’s March 2015 cover story provided a thoughtful discussion around the question of “<a href="https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2015/03/science-doubters-climate-change-vaccinations-gmos/">Why Do Many Reasonable People Doubt Science</a>?” The actual cover, however, simply said “The War on Science.” </p>
<p>That article never actually uses the term “war on science” but claiming the existence of a such a conflict has become quite common.</p>
<p>There are <a href="https://milkweed.org/book/the-war-on-science">books</a> to tell readers “who’s waging it,” “why it matters,” and “what we can do about it” and many <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-trump-administration-rsquo-s-war-on-science-agencies-threatens-the-nation-rsquo-s-health-and-safety/">opinion articles</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/09/opinion/sunday/trump-epa-pruitt-science.html">editorials</a> in reputable publications describing its battles. </p>
<p>While we may fully agree as individuals that current approaches to science policy seem deeply problematic, we also wonder as communication scholars whether it makes strategic sense to call the current situation a “war.” Communication experts have long <a href="https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900041">expressed concerns</a> that framing an issue as a conflict might make finding a reasonable path forward harder by suggesting that people need to choose sides and vanquish their opponents in order to succeed. </p>
<p>Building on such arguments, our <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018822081">new research suggests</a> that Americans may see scientists’ choice to accuse conservatives of waging a “war on science” as relatively aggressive compared to potential alternative ways of describing the current situation. In turn, this perceived aggressiveness may harm the credibility of scientists in conservative audiences that already have doubts about them.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=412&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253346/original/file-20190111-43529-myhcwz.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=518&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Are these ground troops pushing back against a ‘war on science?’</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.apimages.com/metadata/Index/Science-March-Los-Angeles/82397ba7950640bea4a8a5f5effb20ce/1/0">AP Photo/Reed Saxon</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Investigating the effect of the frame</h2>
<p>Framing is how communicators put an issue in context – whether naively or on purpose. For years, communication scholars have criticized journalists for frequently framing issues as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10584600500311394">conflicts or games</a> rather than trying to find <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/107769900508200208">more meaningful ways</a> to understand disagreement. For example, researchers have argued that too much media coverage of climate change focuses on the <a href="https://doi.org/10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23">“fight” between conservatives and liberals</a>. This kind of framing problem isn’t exclusive to science-related coverage – but science communicators don’t need to contribute to the problem.</p>
<p>For our study, we surveyed 1,024 American adults who were part of an online panel, selected to be similar to the U.S. population in terms of age, gender, education and political ideology. We randomly assigned participants to read one of three different versions of a blog post about science or an article about baseball. Then we asked them a series of questions about their perception of scientists and other topics. </p>
<p>We adapted the science article from a 2017 <a href="https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-war-for-science/">Scientific American blog</a> that framed the Trump administration’s approach to scientific evidence as a “war on science.” The article called the administration liars, talking about specific “attacks” and trying to rally scientists to fight back.</p>
<p>We trimmed this initial article for length and then changed some wording to make two alternate versions. Rather than a war, one framed the current situation as either a “challenge for science,” while the other used the frame of a “neglect of science.” </p>
<p>The “challenge for science” article kept some of same aggressive tone as the original article, calling out the White House for lying, but replacing war-related terms such the “attack on science” with the “challenge for science.” In contrast, the article that framed the administration as neglectful took a less aggressive tone, though still addressed the same ideas using the same structure. </p>
<p>What we ultimately found was that the level of perceived aggressiveness coupled with the “war on science” framing generally led conservatives, liberals and moderates to rate the credibility of scientists differently. </p>
<p>When liberals viewed the “war on science”-framed article as an aggressive message, their ratings of scientists’ credibility increased. On the other hand, when viewed as aggressive, the “war on science” framing pushed down conservatives’ perceptions of scientists’ credibility. While not everyone saw the same content as aggressive, when they did, it affected credibility perceptions.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=385&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253322/original/file-20190110-43529-53slh9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=483&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">When respondents read the article with the ‘war on science’ frame, liberals and conservatives diverged in how much credibility they gave scientists based on how aggressive they perceived the writing to be. This pattern wasn’t as evident when respondents read similar articles with the ‘challenge for science’ or ‘neglect of science’ framing.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547018822081">Hardy et al DOI: 10.1177/1075547018822081</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">CC BY-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The differences are fairly small, but we only showed respondents a single article.</p>
<p>Researchers’ understanding is that communication effects like these work cumulatively. So continued exposure to something like war framing might be expected to gradually increase the ideological differences that we found and that seems to be <a href="https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Politics?measure=consci&response=A+great+deal&breakdown=Political+affiliation%C2%B0">appearing in the available long-term data</a> and <a href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412438225">associated research</a>.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=449&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/253326/original/file-20190110-43510-eaz487.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=564&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Scientists can’t count on high confidence ratings continuing forever.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/departmentofenergy/10169162155">U.S. Department of Energy/flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Aggressiveness won’t broaden the base of support</h2>
<p>The pattern is still faint, and average reported confidence in scientists – which seems conceptually similar to credibility – has remained stable over time since the late 1970s. Less than 1 in 10 Americans say they have “hardly any” confidence in the scientific community.</p>
<p>But no one should take this stability for granted. The medical community, for example, has seen its <a href="https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2018/nsb20181/report/sections/science-and-technology-public-attitudes-and-understanding/public-attitudes-about-s-t-in-general">confidence rating decline</a>. Less than 1 in 10 Americans said they had “hardly any” confidence in medicine during the 1970s and into the 1990s, but views have deteriorated in <a href="https://gssdataexplorer.norc.org/trends/Politics?measure=conmedic">recent decades</a>.</p>
<p>And the current results build on some of our own past work showing that aggressive attacks on those who oppose technologies such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2016.1223159">genetically engineered food</a> or <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1471337">vaccines</a> may also push down perceptions of scientists. </p>
<p>There may be times when an aggressive tone and conflict-framing is helpful for getting one’s existing supporters to donate money or perform some other behavior. But we have not seen any evidence that it helps expand the scope of support. </p>
<p>Our hope is to encourage science communicators to make choices about things like framing purposefully and to encourage research into approaches that increase the number of <a href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2018.1457067">friends of science</a>.</p>
<p>In making this argument, we’re mindful of examples such as the LGBT community’s efforts to <a href="https://lgbtmap.org/file/talking-about-overall-approaches-for-lgbt-issues.pdf">stay away from conflict framing</a> in its efforts to build support and lessen opposition to same-sex marriage. Rather than asking people to pick a side, the LGBT community framed marriage as a simple issue of love being love, not a fight for rights. </p>
<p>Aggressive tactics can come into play when those running for political office <a href="http://mediaproject.wesleyan.edu/releases/103018/">use personal attacks and negative advertising</a> to gain advantage against their opponents. Although such an uncivil approach can damage the image of the candidate making the attacks, he or she has time to rebuild their image with supporters before the next election. </p>
<p>In order to have a positive impact, the science community cannot rely on aggressive communication tactics. Science needs continuous and broad support, across the ideological spectrum, to engage in research and discovery and to see that these discoveries are put to use.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/108302/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>John C. Besley has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the United States Department of Agriculture, the John Templeton Foundation, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, the Rita Allen Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Kavli Foundation for research related to science communication. However, the opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of these organizations.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Bruce W. Hardy is a Distinguished Research Fellow at the Annenberg Public Policy Center, University of Pennsylvania. The opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Meghnaa Tallapragada received funding from Clemson University's Support for Early Exploration and Development (CU SEED) Grant Programs. However, the opinions, findings, or recommendations expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Clemson University. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Shupei Yuan receives funding from Rita Allen Foundation to study research related to public engagement. However, the opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the organization.</span></em></p>Researchers found that aggressive messaging and framing current events as a ‘war on science’ had different effects on how liberals and conservatives felt about scientists’ credibility.John C. Besley, Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations, Michigan State UniversityBruce W. Hardy, Assistant Professor of Communication and Social Influence, Temple UniversityMeghnaa Tallapragada, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication, Clemson UniversityShupei Yuan, Assistant Professor of Public Relations, Northern Illinois UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/762052017-04-19T14:17:17Z2017-04-19T14:17:17ZCan March for Science participants advocate without losing the public’s trust?<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165718/original/image-20170418-32720-1nzqpxc.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=655%2C483%2C3997%2C3161&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">What happens to their credibility when scientists take to the streets? February 2017 Stand Up for Science rally in Boston.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/askani97/32208983914">Adam Salsman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As <a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/">the March for Science</a> nears, questions about whether scientists can and should advocate for public policy become more important. On one hand, scientists have <a href="http://evidencesquared.com/ep7/">relevant expertise to contribute</a> to conversations about public policy. And in the abstract, the American public <a href="http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/public-praises-science-scientists-fault-public-media/">supports the idea that scientists should be involved in political debate</a>. On the other hand, scientists who advocate <a href="http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es0726411">may risk losing the trust of the public</a>. Maintaining that trust is imperative for scientists, both to be able to communicate public risks appropriately and to preserve <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">public funding for research</a>.</p>
<p>Little existing research had tested how audiences react when confronted with concrete examples of scientific advocacy. Led by my colleague John Kotcher, my colleagues and I at the <a href="http://www.climatechangecommunication.org/">George Mason Center for Climate Change Communication</a> devised an <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736">experiment to test these questions</a> in the summer of 2014. Our results suggest there is at least some tolerance for advocacy by scientists among the American public. </p>
<h2>Testing a scientist’s perceived credibility</h2>
<p>We asked over 1,200 American adults to read the biography and a single Facebook post of a (fictional) climate scientist named Dr. Dave Wilson. In this post, Dr. Wilson promotes his recent interview regarding his work on climate change. We varied the message of this statement to include a range of advocacy messages – from no advocacy (discussing recent evidence about climate change) to clear advocacy for specific policies to address climate change. </p>
<p><iframe id="8c24n" class="tc-infographic-datawrapper" src="https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/8c24n/1/" height="400px" width="100%" style="border: none" frameborder="0"></iframe></p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736">We found that perceptions of Dr. Wilson’s credibility</a> – and of the scientific community more broadly – did not noticeably decline when he engaged in most types of advocacy. </p>
<p>When Dr. Wilson championed taking action on climate change, without specifying what action, he was considered equally credible as when he described new evidence on climate change or discussed the risks and benefits of a range of policies. In fact, perceptions of Dr. Wilson’s credibility were maintained even when he argued in favor of reducing carbon emissions at coal-fired power plants. </p>
<p>Only when Dr. Wilson advocated for building more nuclear power plants did his credibility suffer.</p>
<h2>Advocacy received differently than partisanship</h2>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=840&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165720/original/image-20170418-32720-1b5707m.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1055&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A nonpartisan message may be well-received.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/anubisabyss/32859743202">AnubisAbyss</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Our study suggests that the American public may not see scientists who advocate for general action on scientific issues as lacking in credibility, nor will they punish the scientific community for one scientist’s advocacy. Yet this study represented only one case of scientific advocacy; other forms of advocacy may not be as accepted by the public. For example, more caution is required when scientists promote specific (unpopular) policies.</p>
<p>Most notably, our study did not test overtly partisan statements from Dr. Wilson. Our research participants saw it that way too; they rated all of Dr. Wilson’s statements as more scientific than political.</p>
<p>The March for Science, however, does risk being seen as motivated by partisan beliefs. In that case, scientists may not escape being criticized for their actions. This is especially true if the march is seen as a protest against President Trump or Republicans in general. In our study, conservatives saw Dr. Wilson as less credible whether he engaged in advocacy or not. If conservatives see the march as a protest against their values, <a href="https://theconversation.com/getting-a-scientific-message-across-means-taking-human-nature-into-account-70634">they may dismiss the message</a> of the march – and the messengers – without considering its merits. </p>
<p>This risk is exacerbated when media coverage of the March for Science is considered. In our study, people saw Dr. Wilson promoting his interview in his Facebook post, but were not exposed to the actual interview in which Dr. Wilson made his case for a given policy. Nor were his actions disruptive; a single post on social media is <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19312458.2016.1150443">relatively easy to skip or ignore</a>, and Dr. Wilson could frame his interview in the way he liked.</p>
<p>The March for Science will be the opposite. If successful, the march will garner attention from news outlets, who may reframe the purpose of the march. </p>
<h2>Balancing the advocacy message</h2>
<p>So what can be done to limit accusations of partisan bias surrounding the march?</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=900&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/165719/original/image-20170418-32716-1p2jg38.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1131&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Researchers can aim for an inclusive message, avoiding the appearance of being just another interest group.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/askani97/32238804743">Adam Salsman</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>One way marchers can minimize this possibility is by crafting an inclusive message that resonates with many people, stressing the ways <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/">science improves our society</a> and <a href="http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/faith-morality-environment/">protects future generations</a>. However, the march’s similarity to other explicitly anti-Trump marches may make it hard to avoid a partisan connotation. </p>
<p>Moreover, in our research Dr. Wilson was portrayed as an older white male, <a href="https://doi.org//10.3102/00028312033002261">matching cultural stereotypes about scientists</a>; he may have had more freedom to engage in advocacy than would female or nonwhite scientists. An inclusive and diverse March for Science may challenge these traditional portrayals of scientists. While many (the authors included) would see that as a desirable objective in itself, it may complicate successful advocacy.</p>
<p><a href="https://www.marchforscience.com/mission/">A goal of the March for Science</a> is to demonstrate that science is a nonpartisan issue. It represents a unique opportunity for scientists to highlight the ways in which science improves our society. Scientists participating in the march should emphasize shared values with those who might otherwise disagree – such as the desire to create a better world for our children and grandchildren. </p>
<p>If the event remains a March for Science, rather than a march against a party or group, the chances increase that it will effectively focus attention on the importance of scientific research.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/76205/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>The original research reported in this post was supported by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Energy Foundation, and the Grantham Foundation for the Protection of the Environment, none of which bear any responsibility for the findings and interpretations reported here.</span></em></p>The research community tends to assume advocacy doesn’t mix with objectivity. One study suggests there’s room for scientists to make real-world recommendations without compromising their trusted status.Emily Vraga, Assistant Professor in Political Communication, George Mason UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/730282017-03-06T02:14:58Z2017-03-06T02:14:58ZCommunicating climate change: Focus on the framing, not just the facts<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159340/original/image-20170303-29002-1h47na1.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">How you package the information matters.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-photo/picture-frame-desert-386830909">Frame image via www.shutterstock.com.</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>Humans are currently in a war against global warming. Or is it a race against global warming? Or maybe it’s just a problem we have to deal with?</p>
<p>If you already consider climate change a pressing issue, you might not think carefully about the way you talk about it – regardless of how you discuss it, you already think of global warming as a problem. But the way we talk about climate change affects the way people think about it.</p>
<p>For scientific evidence to shape people’s actions – both personal behaviors like recycling and choices on policies to vote for – it’s crucial that science be communicated to the public effectively. Social scientists have been increasingly studying the science of science communication, to better understand what does and does not work for discussing different scientific topics. It turns out the language you use and how you frame the discussion can make a big difference.</p>
<h2>The paradox of science communication</h2>
<p>“Never have human societies known so much about mitigating the dangers they faced <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2562025">but agreed so little</a> about what they collectively know,” writes Yale law professor <a href="http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/">Dan Kahan</a>, a leading researcher in the science of science communication.</p>
<p><a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pops.12244">Kahan’s work</a> shows that just because someone has scientific knowledge, he or she won’t necessarily hold science-supported beliefs about controversial topics like global warming, private gun possession or fracking.</p>
<p>Instead, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/488255a">beliefs are shaped by the social groups</a> people consider themselves to be a part of. We’re all simultaneously members of many social groups – based, for example, on political or religious affiliation, occupation or sexuality. If people are confronted with scientific evidence that seems to attack their group’s values, they’re likely to become defensive. They may consider the evidence they’ve encountered to be flawed, and strengthen their conviction in their prior beliefs.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, scientific evidence does sometimes contradict some groups’ values. For example, some religious people trust a strict reading of the Bible: God said there would be four seasons, and hot and cold, so they don’t worry about the patterns in climate that alarm scientists. In cases like this one, how can communicators get their message across? </p>
<p>A growing body of research suggests that instead of bombarding people with piles of evidence, science communicators can focus more on how they present it. The problem isn’t that people haven’t been given enough facts. It’s that they haven’t been given facts in the right ways. Researchers often refer to this packaging as framing. Just as picture frames enhance and draw attention to parts of an image inside, linguistic frames can do the same with ideas.</p>
<p>One framing technique Kahan encourages is <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166">disentangling facts from people’s identities</a>. Biologist Andrew Thaler describes one way of doing so in a post called <a href="http://www.southernfriedscience.com/when-i-talk-about-climate-change-i-dont-talk-about-science/">“When I talk about climate change, I don’t talk about science</a>.” Instead, he talks about things that are important to his audiences, such as fishing, flooding, farming, faith and the future. These issues that matter to the people with whom he’s communicating become an entry into discussing global warming. Now they can see scientific evidence as important to their social group identity, not contradictory to it.</p>
<h2>Let me rephrase that</h2>
<p>Metaphors also provide frames for talking about climate change. Recent work by psychologists <a href="http://www.stephenflusberg.com/">Stephen Flusberg</a>, <a href="https://sites.google.com/a/oberlin.edu/thibodeau/home">Paul Thibodeau</a> and <a href="http://teeniematlock.com/">Teenie Matlock</a> suggests that the metaphors we use to describe global warming can influence people’s beliefs and actions.</p>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=961&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159332/original/image-20170303-29032-144rzey.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1207&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Ready for combat?</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/thomashawk/2346593616">Thomas Hawk</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC BY-NC</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>The researchers asked 3,000 Americans on an online platform to read a short fictional news article about climate change. The articles were exactly the same, but they used different metaphors: One referred to the “war against” and another to the “race against” climate change. For example, each article included phrases about the U.S. seeking to either “combat” (war) or “go after” (race) excessive energy use.</p>
<p>After reading just one of these passages, participants answered questions about their global warming beliefs, like how serious global warming is and whether they would be willing to engage in more pro-environmental behaviors.</p>
<p>Metaphors mattered. Reading about the “war” against global warming led to greater agreement with scientific evidence showing it is real and human-caused. This group of participants indicated more urgency for reducing emissions, believed global warming poses a greater risk and responded that they were more willing to change their behaviors to reduce their carbon footprint than people who read about the “race” against global warming.</p>
<p>The only difference between the articles that participants read was the metaphors they included. Why would reading about a war rather than a race affect people’s beliefs about climate change in such important ways?</p>
<p>The researchers suggest that when we encounter war metaphors, we are reminded (though not always consciously) of other war-related concepts like death, destruction, opposition and struggle. These concepts affect our emotions and remind us of the negative feelings and consequences of defeat. With those war-related thoughts in mind, we may be motivated to avoid losing. If we have these war thoughts swimming around in our minds when we think about global warming, we’re more likely to believe it’s important to defeat the opponent, which, in this case, is global warming. </p>
<p>There are other analogies that are good at conveying the causes and consequences for global warming. Work by psychologists <a href="http://www-personal.umich.edu/%7Ekraimi/">Kaitlin Raimi</a>, <a href="https://www.wilsoncenter.org/person/paul-c-stern">Paul Stern</a> and <a href="http://www.vanderbilt.edu/viee/profiles/Alex-Maki.php">Alexander Maki</a> suggests it helps to point out how global warming is <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171130">similar to many medical diseases</a>. For both, risks are often caused or aggravated by human behaviors, the processes are often progressive, they produce symptoms outside the normal range of past experiences, there are uncertainties in the prognosis of future events, treatment often involves trade-offs or side effects, it’s usually most effective to treat the underlying problem instead of just alleviating symptoms and they’re hard to reverse.</p>
<p>People who read the medical disease analogy for climate change were more likely to agree with the science-backed explanations for global warming causes and consequences than those who read a different analogy or no analogy at all.</p>
<h2>Golden past or rosy future?</h2>
<p>Climate change messages can also be framed by focusing on different time periods. Social psychologists <a href="http://soccco.uni-koeln.de/matthew-baldwin.html">Matthew Baldwin</a> and <a href="https://lammers.socialpsychology.org/">Joris Lammers</a> asked people to <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1610834113">read either a past-focused climate change message</a> (like “Looking back to our nation’s past… there was less traffic on the road”) or a similar future-focused message (“Looking forward to our nation’s future… there is increasing traffic on the road”).</p>
<p>The researchers found that self-identified conservatives, who <a href="http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/10/04/the-politics-of-climate/">tend to resist climate change messages more than liberals</a>, agreed that we should change how we interact with the planet more after reading the past-focused passage. Liberals, on the other hand, reported liking the future-focused frame better, but the frames had no influence on their environmental attitudes.</p>
<figure class="align-left zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=825&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/159338/original/image-20170303-29034-1fqougm.jpeg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=1037&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Example of a past-focused image (top) and a future-focused image (bottom) of a reservoir.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14953/F3.expansion.html">Image courtesy of NASA. Used in Baldwin and Lammers, PNAS December 27, 2016 vol. 113 no. 52 14953-14957.</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>And the frames didn’t have to be words. Conservatives also shifted their beliefs to be more pro-environmental after seeing past-focused images (<a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/113/52/14953/F3.expansion.html">satellite images</a> that progressed from the past to today) more than after seeing future-focused ones (satellite images that progressed from today into the future). Liberals showed no differences in their attitudes after seeing the two frames.</p>
<p>Many climate change messages focus on the potential future consequences of not addressing climate change now. This research on time-framing suggests that such a forward-looking message may in fact be unproductive for those who already tend to resist the idea. </p>
<p>There’s no one-size-fits-all frame for motivating people to care about climate change. Communicators need to <a href="http://collabra.org/articles/10.1525/collabra.68/">know their audience and anticipate their reactions</a> to different messages. When in doubt, though, these studies suggest science communicators might want to bring out the big guns and encourage people to fire away in this war on climate change, while reminding them how wonderful the Earth used to be before our universal opponent began attacking full force.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/73028/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rose Hendricks receives funding from the NSF GRFP. </span></em></p>Are we in a race against climate change? Or is it a war? How does thinking of the past or the future affect your support for the science? Researchers are learning how metaphors and context matter.Rose Hendricks, Ph.D. Candidate in Cognitive Science, University of California, San DiegoLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.