Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byJennifer Briselli
Designing Effective Science Communication
This document discusses effective science communication strategies for polarized audiences. It argues that simply providing more facts or claiming scientific consensus will not change attitudes that are shaped by cultural values. People process information through an identity-protective lens that aligns their views with their social groups. The document advocates for empathizing with different worldviews and framing messages in culturally affirming ways to avoid triggering resistance. It presents a case study showing that priming audiences with identity-affirming themes before scientific information can mitigate polarization. The key is designing communication that judges less and affirms diverse perspectives.
More Related Content
Similar to Designing Effective Science Communication
Designing Effective Science Communication
- 1. Jennifer Briselli SVP, ExperienceStrategy & Service Design Designing Effective Science Communication… …for challenging contexts & polarized audiences @jbriselli jbriselli@madpow.com
- 3. the more thingschange…
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.
- 8.
- 9.
- 10. the more theystay the same. the more things change…
- 11. human beings arestill human.
- 12. “” The saddest aspectof life right now is that science gathers knowledge faster than society gathers wisdom. Isaac Asimov
- 14. so, the problemwith science communication must be… people are in denial people are misinformed people are irrational the problem is… ü prove scientific consensus, out-reason them all! ü more facts! better education! science literacy! ü let’s just ignore them… maybe they’ll disappear.
- 15. …that’s not howit works.
- 16.
- 18. 24 reject globalwarming
- 22.
- 23. “Cultural Cognition ofScientific Consensus” Source: Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald, Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (February 7, 2010). Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011 Fictitious “experts” & two versions of each expert’s article
- 24. Asked participants: “Isthis a knowledgeable and credible expert on…” respondents who agree the author is an expert:
- 25. People generally trustscience; but our perceptions of scientific expertise and policy implications are colored by our values. Denial
- 26.
- 27. “How much riskdo you think climate change poses?” perceived risk science literacy egalitarian communitarian hierarchical individualist Prediction: better informed more agreement with consensus
- 28. “How much riskdo you think climate change poses?” perceived risk science literacy egalitarian communitarian hierarchical individualist Result: for some, better educated more polarized views opposing consensus
- 29. Overcoming a knowledgedeficit or debunking misinformation doesn’t guarantee a change in attitudes or behavior. Misinformation
- 30.
- 31. “All that stuffI was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell.” Rep. Paul Broun R-GA & member the House Science Committee 2007-2015
- 32. “A mask doesn’treally protect you as much as it protects other people. I don’t think it would have made much of a difference.” Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC), After refusing to wear a mask on the House floor and subsequently testing positive for COVID-19
- 34. There is fartoo much information in the world for a human to process, so we offload some of that processing through identity-protective (“cultural”) cognition which prompts us to align our perceptions with trusted or symbolic sources within our own social in-groups
- 36. Rationality ≠ accuracy. Identity-protectivecognition is perfectly rational. It helps us make sense of the world, though it leads to errant perceptions of science & risk. Irrational
- 37. Communication is arhetoric design challenge.
- 39. “” Everyone designs whodevises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Herbert Simon
- 44. How do youdesign communication for people who don’t already agree with you?
- 46. “” Wherever there is design, thereis rhetoric. Kenneth Burke
- 47.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51. communitarianindividualist Interference from outsiders limits personalfreedom. Collective assistance and welfare structures hold people back. Freedom and competition lead to human resourcefulness and innovation. People should be free to do what they deem right without mandates. Human interaction and compassion are important. People have a responsibility to take care of each other. Collaboration and solidarity make strong, safe communities. Everyone should be willing to both help and depend on others.
- 52. hierarchical egalitarian It’s ok toacknowledge and even emphasize differences. It’s ok to distribute wealth and duty according to class or expertise. Roles should be differentiated in a traditional manner. Policy and social conventions should support traditional hierarchies and stability. Discrimination is harmful. Everyone deserves equal representation in duty and distribution of wealth. Everyone should have access; non-traditional roles are ok. Everyone should be allowed to participate; diversity is good.
- 53. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian gun control HPV vaccine compulsoryhealth measures evolution climate change nuclear power abortion Perceived as Risks
- 55.
- 56.
- 57. EMPATHIZE Empathy ≠endorsement.
- 58.
- 59. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian Affirming Threatening harsh criticism oftraditional roles & industry unrestricted competition, threats to social supports interference, constraints on personal freedoms denial of participation, access, status stability, authority, expertise collaboration, community, stewardship resourcefulness, independence, privacy equality, access, participation
- 60. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian Harsh criticism oftraditional roles & industry Unrestricted competition, threats to social supports Interference, constraints on personal freedoms Denial of participation, access, status Avoid:
- 61. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian stability, authority, expertise collaboration, community,stewardship resourcefulness, independence, privacy equality, access, participation Highlight:
- 62. case study: vaccination Whyshould I? ü communitarian & egalitarian Why would I? ü hierarchical & individualist Why wouldn’t I? ü debunking & de-biasing Will I? ü choice
- 63. What resonated most? “” Thepart about vaccines being a _________. I never thought about it that way.
- 64.
- 66. One More Study: Participantsread an editorial story with specific framing: anti-pollution or geo-engineering. Then, they all read the same neutral, statistics-based article about climate change.
- 67. communitarianindividualist hierarchical egalitarian “Climate change isa very real threat to our planet and our way of life!” “Climate change isn’t a thing.” Usually:
- 68. The anti-pollution primingstory accentuated conventional anti-commerce and anti-technology themes. Hierarchical-Individualists find these values threatening; they discounted the statistics in the second article & expressed even stronger climate change denial. The geo-engineering priming story accentuated themes like human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit overcoming natural limits on commerce. Hierarchical-Individualists find these values affirming; they accepted the statistics in the second article & expressed stronger acceptance of climate change as a threat we should act on.
- 69. Framing messaging aboutpolitically charged topics with identity-affirming meanings can mitigate resistance & polarization.
- 70.
- 72. Judge less, designmore.
- 73. “” Everyone designs whodevises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Herbert Simon
- 74. “” Everyone designs whodevises courses of action aimed at changing existing situations into preferred ones. Herbert Simon
- 75.
- 77. Jennifer Briselli SVP, ExperienceStrategy & Service Design @jbriselli jbriselli@madpow.com Thank You