7 posts · 5,505 views
Age of Engagement
7 posts
Sort by Latest Post, Most Popular
View by Condensed, Full
- August 18, 2010
- 11:22 AM
- 903 views
Can Energy Sector Workers Serve as Influential Public Ambassadors?
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
Earlier today, in response to Sheril Kirshenbaum’s query at Discover’s Intersection blog, I spotlighted the key influence of opinion-leaders on energy related behavior. As a follow up, let’s take a look at a new study out this month, co-authored by John Besley, an assistant professor of Communication at the University of South Carolina (and a friend of mine from our doctoral studies together at Cornell.)
In the study appearing at the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Besley and his co-author surveyed individuals in the state of South Carolina working in the hydrogen energy sector, evaluating their potential to serve as opinion-leaders on the topic. They reasoned that workers in the energy sector are passionate and knowledgeable, can they also serve as community connectors and go-betweens on the subject? And if so, what kinds of resources should they be provided to be most effective?
I posed several questions to Besley in an email about the study and its relevance. Below I have posted the questions and his replies.
What is an opinion-leader?
Opinion-leaders are the people we turn to in our own social circle when we’re trying to figure out what to think about something new. They’re the information junkies that you know will have an informed opinion about some subject that you’re just learning about. Opinion-leaders can be people with jobs that put them at the center of social life such as religious leaders or elected officials but they can also be the mother on the street who somehow seems to know everything about the local restaurants and schools. Pollsters, marketers, and political operatives have long known about the value of courting opinion-leaders. They’re the ones who do the best job showing off new electronic toys, selling Tupperware and hosting coffee fundraisers for up-and-coming politicians.
Why are opinion-leaders important to new technologies, specifically to hydrogen technology?
My sense is that people have some sort of mental image of what hydrogen energy is but it’s probably pretty vague. It’s also potentially wrong if what they think about is the Hindenburg or the explosions at the end of the James Bond movie Quantum of Solace. The truth is most of us have very limited contact with hydrogen or fuel cell (HFC) technologies. Unless I walk down to the engineering school here on campus, the only time I encounter HFC technologies is in media stories or when I see an occasional test vehicle on the street.
The idea of the current article was to find that small group of people – about 100 in South Carolina – who are working with hydrogen and fuel cell technology in their every day work and find out whether those people have been talking to people about their experiences and to find out what they have to say. My co-author, Shannon Baxter-Clemmons, is in charge of the South Carolina Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Alliance so she has an interest in figuring out whether these workers might be able to help spread the word about HFC technologies in their lives outside of work.
Why do you think science communication research until only recently has overlooked the central role of opinion-leaders?
There’s just so much to study and maybe it’s a lot more obvious to study the impact of regular news media on how people view the world. It makes sense to put a lot of focus there. However, as the field has gotten more sophisticated, I think we have come to (re)realize that to understand public opinion we need to get into the messy business of understanding people’s everyday talk. Studying opinion-leaders is one way to get a handle on what’s happening in those conversations. The media certainly play a part in the process but studying public opinion about technology (or any subject) without looking at personal conversations would be like studying retailing by studying advertising without studying what actually happens in the stores where people actually buy the products.
Do you think opinion-leaders are even more central in today's world of digital and social media?
They’ve probably always been important I just wonder now whether there’s more tools available for the opinion-leader to make their views known, whether it’s Tweeting, posting on Facebook, or writing a blog. There’s also the question of whether people’s social networks have expanded or somehow changed in structure. One thing I know from my own life is that, even though I’ve moved around a few times, it’s easier to stay in touch with people and I still sometimes turn to friends I don’t see very often for guidance. It’s an interesting question but it would be tough to study.
You describe issue-specific opinion-leaders and general opinion-leaders? What's the difference? Why would the difference matter to a public engagement initiative surrounding an emerging technology such as hydrogen?
I think this is partly a question of how we go about measuring opinion-leadership but there’s also a substantive difference between the idea of someone who is generally out there giving advice and the idea of someone who is more focused on specific topics. There’s plenty of overlap between the two groups but for the current study we found that, to identify people willing to get out there and say positive things about hydrogen and fuel cell technology, issue-specific characteristics were more important.
Questions used to measure general opinion-leaders focus on things like the degree of agreement/disagreement with statements such as “I enjoy convincing others of my opinion” while issue specific leadership is measured using relative agreement/disagreement with statements such as “My friends often use me as a source of knowledge in discussions about HFC technology.”
What are the important questions that follow-up research in this area should examine?
This study looked at whether opinion-leaders existed within the hydrogen and fuel cell worker community and then explored what these people think about the technology. It turns out the people who say they like telling people about hydrogen and fuel cell technologies are also the ones who are already out there talking to people. The next question is really whether there’s room to help these people out so that they reach more people or to encourage them to focus on specific things.
Another question my co-author and I are hoping to be able to do is figure out what messages are most effective in getting people to think about HFC technology in a positive light. In other words, we want to know if technology proponents are better off emphasizing environmental arguments, economic arguments, national security arguments, or some maybe something else. The key is finding out what best resonates with specific audiences.
In what ways is this study useful to an organization, university, or company seeking to engage the public on hydrogen technology?
Opinion-leaders can be powerful voices in communities. Media campaigns don’t always reach very far into society. This also means that it makes sense to hold events like Science Cafés or other outreach events even if they only attract a small group of people. The kind of people who turn up for these things are probably the kinds of people who are telling others about what they heard, creating a potential multiplying effect for outreach efforts. As I noted above, however, there hasn’t been enough discussion about how to mobilize these voices in useful ways rather than just hoping that everything will work out.
One obvious question is to ask whether it’s ethical to try and shape these conversations but it’s important to remember is that you’re probably not the only source of information for opinion-leaders. By definition, opinion-leaders are pretty connected individuals so I think working with them puts an onus on communicators to be open, honest and well-reasoned. If you mess with these people, they’re going to tell people what a jerk or idiot you are just as surely as they would have passed along their positive impressions.
What do readers think? Can we harness the expertise and enthusiasm of energy sector workers to engage the wider public on energy issues and choices?
Citations:
... Read more »
Besley, J., & Baxter-Clemmons, S. (2010) Analysis of South Carolina hydrogen and fuel cell workers views and opinion leadership behavior: A waiting opportunity?. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, 35(16), 8407-8416. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2010.06.002
Nisbet, M., & Kotcher, J. (2009) A Two-Step Flow of Influence?: Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate Change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328-354. DOI: 10.1177/1075547008328797
- August 18, 2010
- 07:35 AM
- 894 views
Market Mavens: A Two Step Flow of Influence on Energy Choices
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
Over at Discover magazine’s terrific Intersection blog, Sheril Kirshenbaum asks readers: “How might we shift public attitudes to be less wasteful and save energy on a massive scale?”
A major finding from social science research is that individual behavior choices are often shaped by perceptions of what other people are doing, especially our peers and other trusted individuals. A key agent in this process are what researchers call opinion-leaders, special individuals across communities and social groups that can serve as vital go-betweens and information brokers, passing on messages about energy conservation that speak directly to their otherwise inattentive peers, co-workers, and friends. In this “two step-flow of information,” opinion-leaders do not necessarily hold formal positions of power or prestige in communities, but rather serve as the connective communication tissue that alerted their peers to what mattered among political events, social issues, and consumer choices.
In a paper published last year (PDF) with my former student John Kotcher (now on the staff at the National Academies), we reviewed the several decades of research in the area, describing in specific ways how opinion-leaders can be used in both climate change and energy conservation campaigns.
Here’s part of what we wrote relevant to opinion-leader campaigns targeting consumer decisions, highlighting past research from the field of consumer behavior on the role of “market mavens” as opinion-leaders:
….previous research has identified “market mavens” as holding expertise and influence in broader marketplace-related information rather than just a type or class of consumer good. Market mavens are enthusiastic advice givers, with studies showing that mavens do not have to be early users or purchasers of a product to pass-on information. In lieu of personal product use, a market maven’s expertise derives from closer attention to magazines and consumer-focused Web sites. They also exhibit greater participation in activities such as using coupons, recreational shopping, reading advertisements, responding to direct mail, and providing retailers with personal information (Feick and Price, 1987; Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004). In surveys, market mavens are identified using a six item scale first developed by Feick and Price (1987) [We include these measures in the appendix to the paper].
Market mavens can be valuable targets in …. campaigns promoting new energy-efficient products or consumer technology. Applied to these campaigns, Clark and Goldsmith (2005) recommend appealing to several identified personality attributes of market mavens including status and perceived uniqueness. Yet they also warn that market mavens do not want to purchase products that place them “too far outside” of perceived norms. The implication is that campaign messages and advertising should emphasize the “different but still socially acceptable” nature of a product, focusing on its newness and status-enhancing attributes.
An example relevant to [energy conservation] is the marketing success of Toyota’s Prius. In focus groups, prospective hybrid buyers say they believe that driving a distinctively-shaped Prius sends a conspicuous signal about values, a message that respondents expect to generate acclaim from peers. As auto manufacturers continue to introduce hybrid versions of their traditional models, they are now careful to let “buyers broadcast their earth-friendliness” by way of three-inch hybrid labels, and/or unique grille, wheels, or tail lights (Brand Neutral, 2006; Kerwin, 2003; Schneider, 2004).
In general, mavens talk significantly more about campaigns and sales at stores, and pay closer attention to advertising and special offers (Higie, Feick, & Price, 1987). Research also shows that market mavens are motivated psychologically by a sense of duty to pass on product information; by a sense of pleasure they derive from doing so; and by a desire to appear as a “competent helper” to friends and peers…
…this research suggests that advertising to mavens should emphasize appeals such as “Now that you know how [insert energy saving product] work, you have a duty to tell others.” Additionally, stores should make it easy for mavens to enjoy spreading the word about sustainable products, adding social media features to a campaign and creating rewards such as “bonus points” when mavens get others to purchase a product (Walsh, Gwinner, & Swanson, 2004). Overall, market-mavens hold important implications for big-box store chains such as Wal-Mart that have set “green” campaign goals that include selling fluorescent light bulbs and other energy-saving products. In reaching mass consumers, market-mavens are likely to be the central go-betweens for these stores.
What do readers think? Does the influence of opinion-leaders speak to your own personal experience?
I will have more on research related to opinion-leaders and energy behavior in a second post appearing later today.
Citation:
Nisbet, M., & Kotcher, J. (2009). A Two-Step Flow of Influence?: Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate Change Science Communication, 30 (3), 328-354 DOI: 10.1177/1075547008328797... Read more »
Nisbet, M., & Kotcher, J. (2009) A Two-Step Flow of Influence?: Opinion-Leader Campaigns on Climate Change. Science Communication, 30(3), 328-354. DOI: 10.1177/1075547008328797
- August 24, 2010
- 09:49 AM
- 845 views
Going Nuclear: Closing the Gap Between Radiation and Reason
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
In a series of posts over at Scientific American's blog CrossCheck, John Horgan describes how several recent articles and books have prompted him to re-evaluate his views on nuclear energy. He specifically recommends Gynweth Craven's Power to Save the World, discusses John Mueller's Atomic Obsession, and describes how Wade Allison's Between Radiation and Reason has challenged his views about the risks of radiation exposure. Horgan's seminal End of Science partly inspired my research focus in graduate school, so when Horgan picks up on an idea trend, I pay attention.
Changing public perceptions of nuclear energy hinge on a re-framing of the issue. As American University's Investigative Reporting Workshop uncovered earlier this year, companies and unions related to the industry have spent over the past decade more than $600 million on lobbying and nearly $63 million on campaign contributions.
Apart from the merits of the technology, this type of insider influence--while raising nuclear energy on the Congressional and White House agenda--should be cause for concern. These types of media reports also present a public image problem, reinforcing a long standing frame of reference on the issue that the industry lacks transparency and accountability.
Last year, in an open-access article published at the journal Environment, I wrote about the public perception problem surrounding nuclear energy, using the history of the debate as an example of how framing shapes judgments and policy decisions. My analysis is a side-bar to an article focused on the framing of climate change more generally.
As I describe, few Americans are likely to associate nuclear energy with slogans like “atoms for peace” or “electricity too cheap to meter.” Yet in the 1950s and 1960s, nuclear energy production was framed almost exclusively in these terms, with the technology defined as leading to social progress, economic competitiveness, and a better way of life. Those interpretations began to change in the 1970s and shifted permanently with the Three Mile Island accident. It wasn't until 2001, under the Bush administration, that the train of thought on the issue started to reverse course:
When news reports of Three Mile Island galvanized national attention, the prevailing frames of public accountability and runaway technology became the major modes of interpretation. In a classic example of a frame device instantly signaling runaway technology, a Time magazine cover featured an ominous picture of the Three Mile Island reactor and the headline “Nuclear Nightmare.” The accident helped set in motion a dominant media narrative that went on to spotlight additional examples of construction flaws, incompetence, faulty management, and potential risks at nuclear power plants across the country.4
The Chernoybl disaster of 1986 only strengthened the frames of public accountability, runaway technology, and scientific uncertainty. The event generated worldwide attention, with few news reports contextualizing the comparative safety record of the American nuclear energy industry, effectively leaving the prevailing frames unchallenged.5 The last nuclear power plants to be built in the United States were constructed in the 1970s, though more than 100 power plants remain in operation today.6
At the start of 2000, however, new focusing events began to shift the interpretative packages and mental categories applied to nuclear energy. In 2001, in reaction to rising energy costs and rolling blackouts in California, the George W. Bush administration launched a communication campaign to promote nuclear power as a middle way path to energy independence.7 The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, dampened the viability of this frame package, as experts and media reports focused on nuclear power plants as potential terrorist targets.8 But since 2004, as energy prices have climbed and as U.S. dependence on overseas oil has been defined by political leaders as a major national security issue, a renewed emphasis on the energy independence interpretation has surfaced. As of 2007, utility companies submitted more than 20 applications to build additional nuclear reactors across the country to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.9
The effort by the second Bush administration and the nuclear energy industry to reframe the relevance of nuclear energy has been complemented by an attempt to similarly sell nuclear energy as a middle way solution to greenhouse gas emissions. Former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administrator Christine Todd Whitman, along with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, are among the sponsors of this interpretative package, arguing nuclear energy is “cleaner, cheaper, and safer” than coal-powered energy.10 According to their argument, if U.S. citizens are going to satisfy their energy demands while achieving the goal of cutting greenhouse gas emissions, the country needs to reinvest in nuclear energy.11 While running for U.S. president, Senator John McCain (R-AZ) promoted a similar middle way interpretation, declaring in a 2008 campaign speech, “If we’re looking for a vast supply of reliable and low-cost electricity—with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability—that’s the working definition of nuclear energy.”12
However, several oppositional frames invoked in the 1970s still resonate. Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists continue to promote uncertainty and public accountability interpretations, demanding that nuclear plants be tightly regulated in light of safety problems, the “public’s right to know,” and a “failure of regulators to take effective action” on potential risks.13 Other environmental groups emphasize not only the potential runaway dangers of nuclear energy, but also question its cost-effectiveness. They emphasize that nuclear power is not safe, not cost effective (because of the need for government subsidies), and not needed.14
What do readers think? Is concern over nuclear energy overblown? Apart from the merits of the technology, in the wake of the BP oil disaster, should we be concerned about too much industry influence and not enough oversight if government investment moves forward? Is a re-framing of the issue the key to opening a space for more reasoned discussion about the technology?
One advocate for nuclear energy is James Hansen. Watch his interview on the topic with Big Think below and then share your own views.
* Hat tip to Andrew Revkin at his Facebook page for pointing to the Horgan posts.
Citation:
Nisbet, M. (2009). Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51 (2), 12-23 DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
See also:
New Study Provides Clues on How to Build Support for Nuclear Energy
AU Report on the Lobbying Strategy of the Nuclear Industry
... Read more »
Nisbet, M. (2009) Communicating Climate Change: Why Frames Matter for Public Engagement. Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 51(2), 12-23. DOI: 10.3200/ENVT.51.2.12-23
- August 19, 2010
- 09:06 AM
- 782 views
Scientist Urges "Four Culture" Partnerships on Climate Change Communication
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
More than 50 years after the publication of CP Snow's seminal Two Cultures, interdisciplinary partnerships between science and other academic "cultures" are being urged once again. Today, urgency is not focused on the Cold War but rather the challenge of engaging society on climate change and other environmental problems.
In an open access article published this month at the journal Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, I joined with several colleagues to describe the potential for partnerships that involve interdisciplinary "four culture" initiatives across universities and community-based institutions.
The essay is based on the insights, revelations, and conclusions from the 16 member Columbia River Quorum, which was composed of scientists, scholars, and professionals - four representatives from each of what we describe as the four academic "cultures" - who met in Oregon in 2009 for the first of what we hope will be many similar summits across the world (see photo below). The goal of that meeting was to identify and build synergies by which members of traditionally separate disciplinary cultures -- specifically the environmental sciences, philosophy and religion, the social sciences, and the creative arts and professions -- can accomplish collaboratively what none are capable of doing alone.
In the essay, we propose specific strategies for catalyzing these inter-disciplinary partnerships with the goal of creating a new communication infrastructure around the issue of climate change. These strategies include a bold proposal to pool "public impact" money from individual research grants at the university level to be re-invested by a "four culture" expert committee in local and regional public engagement initiatives. It also includes a call for a digital news community--a Chronicle of Higher Ed focused on climate change education and communication--that would serve as a catalyst for identifying and diffusing best practices and partnerships.
One of the organizers of the Four Cultures summit in Oregon was Mark Hixon, professor of Marine Conservation Biology at Oregon State University. In an interview I did with Hixon, he reflects on the origins of the summit and his outlook on the urgent need for Four Culture initiatives on climate change communication and education at universities across the country. Along with the interview, I have posted a photo and a list of the participants in the summit.
What motivated you to organize the Columbia River Quorum?
My Oregon State University (OSU) philosopher / writer colleague and friend, Kathy Moore, and I were sharing lunch, lamenting on the increasingly bad news regarding the state of the global environment and the lack of substantial remedial action by the United States regarding climate disruption. We focused on the need for our society's response to accelerate past the exponentially increasing rate of environmental degradation if all the Earth's children and grandchildren are to enjoy healthy lives.
Where did the idea come from?
The need for an accelerated response by society to climate disruption and other pressing environmental issues stimulated the idea that we need new synergies. Natural science has done a wonderful job documenting environmental threats, yet that knowledge alone has not stimulated an adequate response within our nation. Needed are all four academic cultures -- natural sciences, social sciences, philosophy and religious studies, and communication and creative arts -- to fully engage with each other to create those synergies. Once that need became clear to us, hosting a quorum with representatives from each of the four cultures was the logical next step.
Over the course of the weekend, what things did you come to realize?
In March 2009, Kathy's organization, OSU's Spring Creek Project, hosted 4 members of each of the 4 academic cultures at a beautiful retreat in the Columbia River Gorge (see photo below). The energy of the weekend was exciting and truly palpable. Ideas flowed like the great flood that carved the Gorge! I realized then that the time was right for these new synergies to develop -- that together we in academia truly can help to bring about "the great turning" in new, more integrated, and more effective ways.
If you were to emphasize two take away conclusions from the experience for environmental scientists, what would they be?
First, let go of the entrenched worldview that our role as environmental scientists is ONLY to provide data to society regarding climate disruption and other environmental threats -- that providing data ALONE will stimulate society to respond to these threats. That partial and isolated role has failed and will continue to do so.
Second, engage with social scientists and non-scientist colleagues, indeed, with the public at large regarding these important issues that affect us all. In short, do not abdicate your citizenship -- actively engage in changing the world!
Why do you think some scientists might have reservations about interdisciplinary partnerships focused on public engagement?
There are many reported reasons: (1) the perceived lack of time and energy as we focus exclusively on teaching, research, and university administration, (2) the ineffective worldview that our role is only to provide information, (3) the false belief that our credibility as scientists will dissolve if we fully engage as citizens, etc. I personally reject all these excuses, and I highly recommend that all scientists read Michael Nelson's recent papers on these issues [attached -- check with Michael to see if you can provide download links].
What do you think are steps that can be taken at the university and disciplinary level to encourage greater "Four Culture" partnerships?
Traditional university organizational structures are insufficiently integrated and often terribly isolating, especially between the sciences and the liberal arts. At OSU, two recent efforts building on the Spring Creek Project are fostering new synergies among the four academic cultures. First, the once fully separate colleges of science and liberal arts have been folded into a single division of arts and sciences. Second, a new environmental humanities initiative, the interdisciplinary Three Rivers Institute, has been formed to foster integration among human values, science, and environmental leadership.
If colleagues at another university wanted to organize their own Four Culture quorum, what advice would you give them?
Go for it! Start with a simple foursome of one member from each culture, then build from there. I truly believe that people are ready for revolutionary integration. All four cultures have been working for changing the world in positive ways, largely in parallel, isolated, and often (but certainly not always) ineffective. The time is ripe for new synergies that will accelerate our society's response to pressing environmental threats.
Members of the Columbia River Quorum (March 2009): Back row: Bob Frodeman, Scott Sanders, Steve Vanderheiden, Andreas Schmittner, Hank Green, Fred Swanson, Charles Goodrich, Kathie Olsen, John Bliss, Mark Hixon. Front row: Kathy Moore, Carly Johnson, Michael Nelson, Pam Sturner, Alison Deming, Michaela Hammer. Missing: Eban Goodstein and Matt Nisbet.
Citation:
Nisbet, M., Hixon, M., Moore, K., & Nelson, M. (2010). Four cultures: new synergies for engaging society on climate change Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8 (6), 329-331 DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329
... Read more »
Nisbet, M., Hixon, M., Moore, K., & Nelson, M. (2010) Four cultures: new synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 329-331. DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329
- April 7, 2011
- 10:01 AM
- 717 views
Re-Defining Science Communication: Emerging Best Practices that Empower the Public
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
Over the past few years, scholars and scientists have been re-examining both the goals and the nature of science communication initiatives. In a guest post today, Melanie Gade reviews much of this recent discussion and innovation. Gade is a graduate student in this semesters course on "Science ...Read More... Read more »
Nisbet, M., Hixon, M., Moore, K., & Nelson, M. (2010) Four cultures: new synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 329-331. DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329
Groffman, P., Stylinski, C., Nisbet, M., Duarte, C., Jordan, R., Burgin, A., Previtali, M., & Coloso, J. (2010) Restarting the conversation: challenges at the interface between ecology and society. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 284-291. DOI: 10.1890/090160
- January 18, 2011
- 07:08 PM
- 691 views
"Perceptions of Promise: Biology, Society, Art" Explores the Social Dimensions of Life Science Technologies
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
Despite the important role of the arts in enabling public expression, learning, and participation relative to science, there is an unfortunate tendency to think about the relationship in terms of "two cultures" divided. This metaphor has come to dominate discourse about science and society more ...Read More... Read more »
Nisbet, M., Hixon, M., Moore, K., & Nelson, M. (2010) Four cultures: new synergies for engaging society on climate change. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 8(6), 329-331. DOI: 10.1890/1540-9295-8.6.329
- August 20, 2010
- 12:32 PM
- 673 views
Study: In Communicating about Nano and GMOs, Do the Frames or the Facts Matter?
by Matthew C. Nisbet in Age of Engagement
When attempting to communicate effectively with the public about a science-related debate, which is more important, framing the message or conveying science-based facts about the topic? A forthcoming study (Word) at the Journal of Communication by Northwestern University researchers James Druckman and Toby Bolsen sheds new light on this long standing question.
As I will be highlighting at this blog, previous research consistently finds that the public typically form opinions in the absence of factual information, instead relying on mental short-cuts based on personal experience, values, and the selective presentation—or “framing”--of an issue.
Frames influence perceptions and decisions because they focus on just one dimension of a complex topic over another, in the process communicating why an issue matters, why it might be personally relevant, and why a related action might lead to specific benefits or risks.
Understanding and applying research on framing is particularly relevant to engaging the public on emerging issues such as nanotechnology and genetic engineering, but it also applies to communicating about entrenched policy debates such as climate change. For example, in a recent study I conducted with Ed Maibach and colleagues, we find that when climate change is re-framed as a health problem rather than an environmental one, this re-interpretation is evaluated favorably and positively by a broad cross-section of Americans. A frame in essence switches the train of thought for an audience, leading to a different set of attributions and conclusions.
Framing is an unavoidable aspect of human communication. There is no such thing as unframed information. On science-related issues, this idea is difficult to grasp for some advocates and scientists who still view communication through the lens of what scholars call the “deficit model” which assumes that opinion formation is a direct consequence of knowledge (or alternatively ignorance). If the public only better understood the facts of a scientific topic they would more likely view the issue as scientists do and controversy would go away.
There is no question that deliberate decisions to selectively frame an issue can be used to deceive, but they can also be used to more effectively explain and engage audiences, boosting interest, attention, and learning. As an example, in a recently published book chapter, I discussed the audience research approach that the National Academies used in framing the structure of a report on the teaching of evolution in schools (PDF).
A second example is our recent research on the potential to re-frame climate as a health problem. Not only does this new focus likely increase personal significance and relevance among Americans but it also communicates about objectively real and scientifically well-documented health risks that the public should know about. It also starts to promote greater attention to adaptation policies and strategies--such as evacuation procedures, water and agricultural sanitation policies, improved housing, cooling stations during heat waves, and new transportation infrastructures-- that are needed to protect people and communities and that also result in healthier and higher quality lives.
Frames vs. Facts on Nano and GMOs
The forthcoming study by James Druckman and Toby Bolsen provides new understanding and data on how frames influence public perceptions and decisions about emerging areas of science. Later today, I will post an interview with Druckman about his research (read it here). In the rest of this post, I discuss and provide background on the study.
Druckman and Bolsen were interested in understanding whether the inclusion of facts--specifically reference to the findings of a scientific study---added additional power and influence to the framing of nanotechnology and genetically modified food.
These issues--like many science debates--are often debated and talked about in terms of benefits and risks, typically in very general terms without much reference to actual scientific research. Does providing more precise information about scientific findings relative to benefits and risks matter to public judgments or are more general assertions what really drive perceptions?
Importantly, Druckman and Bolsen also wanted to know whether after a frame was set on an issue, how did subjects then interpret information about scientific studies on the topic? Were subjects open to re-considering their views or did they interpret the studies as fitting with their pre-conceived opinion?
On election day in 2008, Druckman and Bolsen assembled 20 teams of students to conduct exit polls of 621 voters in the Chicago region, querying voters on their perceptions of carbon nanotubes (CNTs) and genetically-modified foods (GMOs). For the interviews, voters were randomly assigned to separate frame and issue conditions.
For different groups of voters, CNTs or GMOS were defined using either a “fact” free frame or fact-based frame, with an emphasis on either benefits or risks. In the case of CNTs, respondents were read the following introduction followed by one of the following frames, depending on their assigned experimental condition. A similar method was used on GMOs (see the paper for more details):
One of the most pressing issues facing the nation—as has been clear from the election—concerns the limitations to our energy supply (e.g., with regard to coal, oil and natural gas). One approach to addressing this issue is to rely more on carbon nanotubes or CNTs. CNTs are tiny graphite with distinct chemical properties. They efficiently convert sunlight into electricity, and thus, serve as an alternative to coal, oil, and natural gas. The uncertain long-term effects of CNTs are the subject of continued study and debate.
Fact Free Benefits of Nanotechnology
Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns how they will affect energy cost and availability. A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.
Fact Free Risks of Nanotechnology
Most agree that the most important implication of CNTs concerns their unknown long-run implications for human health. A recent study on health showed that mice injected with large quantities of CNTs reacted in the same way as they do when injected with asbestos.
Fact-based Benefits of Nanotechnology
A recent study on cost and availability showed that CNTs will double the efficiency of solar cells in the coming years.
Fact-based Risks of Nanotechnology
A recent study on health showed that mice injected with large quantities of CNTs reacted in the same way as they do when injected with asbestos.
Subjects were asked on a 7 point scale to express their level of support or opposition for either CNTs or GMOs depending on the frame condition. Other questions measuring pre-existing levels of scientific knowledge, demographic background, and generalized views about science were asked and used as controls in their analysis.
After completing the interviews on Election Day, participants were re-contacted 10 days later. At this time, depending on their frame condition, they were presented with reminder information about CNTs and GM foods. Then, for each technology, respondents evaluated the “effectiveness” of three distinct factually based scientific studies “in providing information or making an argument” (on 7-point scales with higher scores indicating increased effectiveness). Respondents also rated the extent to which each study opposed or supported the technology (on 7-point scales with higher scores indicating increased effectiveness), and re-reported their overall support for each technology.
In their analysis Druckman and Bolsen find that on both issues, frames that emphasize general statements about either the benefits or the risks of the technology influenced perceptions, with slightly stronger effects for the risk conditions. Yet importantly, when frames included “facts” that reference specific findings from scientific studies, the inclusion did not significantly enhance the power of the frames.
As they conclude, contrary to the strong emphasis of the deficit model on promoting scientific literacy as the key to communication, referencing facts adds little to how framing influences individuals’ opinions about new technologies.
Finally, when they analyzed the results of the follow-up interviews, they found that how subjects evaluated information presented about research on the technologies was strongly influenced by their pre-existing views. In other words, much like a strong Democrat or Republican tends to view even favorable news coverage as reinforcing their pre-existing opinion of an opposing party's cand... Read more »
Maibach, E., Nisbet, M., Baldwin, P., Akerlof, K., & Diao, G. (2010) Reframing climate change as a public health issue: an exploratory study of public reactions. BMC Public Health, 10(1), 299. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-299
topics
join us!
Do you write about peer-reviewed research in your blog? Use ResearchBlogging.org to make it easy for your readers — and others from around the world — to find your serious posts about academic research.
If you don't have a blog, you can still use our site to learn about fascinating developments in cutting-edge research from around the world.
