Facts don't change minds
Image credits: The Guardian
This post was inspired by a Gonzalez Lab meeting that discussed a fascinating paper: Toomey (2023) "Why facts don’t change minds: Insights from cognitive science for the improved communication of conservation research" in Biological Conservation.
by Veronica Wrobel
Picture this: You are a world renowned (conservation) scientist with years and years of experience and work behind you. Your research field is extremely important and what you do has the potential to reverse some of the damage caused by climate change and the biodiversity crisis, therefore improving the lives of millions of people.
You spend most of your waking hours doing research: observing, learning, taking notes, writing and reviewing. Your writing style, even though very academic, is also accessible to a wider audience and you are extremely proud of that, because you spent countless hours learning how to make it happen.
Your research is very popular and the media is always interested in what you have to say. You also don't shy away from giving interviews or appearing on national television, because what better way is there to reach the widest audience?
Social media is not a foreign tool for you either. You have already invested a lot of time in growing your audience and today you have thousands of followers. On paper your performance is great and many influencers would be jealous of your metrics…
And yet, your research is only put in practice by a tiny group of people, and quite frankly, not making as big of a difference as you were hoping.
So, why does that happen?
Here is the thing: you've been communicating your research all wrong.
But how come? You always followed the best science communication guidelines!
The reality is that the well known science communication guidelines you've been following so religiously are rooted in outdated models of communication and behavioural change.
In fact, it is not enough to communicate clear and simple facts and to reach a wide audience. What we need, first and foremost, is to understand how a person processes information and what leads them to act upon it. Only then can we implement a communication strategy to enable conservation science to have a greater impact on both policy and practice.
A recent synthesis of human cognitive science for biodiversity conservation provides insights into more effective ways of communicating science. This study addresses 4 common myths in science communication and proposes 4 alternative solutions for effective science communications
Let's take a look at the myths here, and then in a second post we will focus on the solutions.
1. The more facts, the better.
It is natural to think that, when presented with a lot of facts, numbers and figures, the human mind will come to the best conclusions. In reality, however, the human brain gets easily overwhelmed with vast amounts of data and will take shortcuts when making a decision, basing itself on experience, opinion and confirmation bias rather than hard evidence. For example, even though there is an extensive amount of research that deems vaccines as safe and protective, a group of people still refuses to take them because they heard of someone reacting badly to them and therefore assume that they are too risky, even though overwhelming evidence shows the risk is insignificant.
2. The more you know, the better.
If you believe that it's easier to change a well informed mind than an uninformed mind, perhaps because a more informed person will recognize the value of scientific evidence and come to a reasonable conclusion, then you are wrong! In fact, people hold beliefs based on their worldview, religion and political orientation and they will see data that supports their belief system as more valid. Even more so, the more knowledgeable someone is, the easier it will be for them to find arguments in favour of their own beliefs.
3. Individual change will shift collective behaviour
How many times have we heard that individual change will have an impact on the global scale? That our individual actions are crucial to change the world? That if everyone recycles, goes vegan, or takes shorter showers then we will save the planet? While individual action is not to be neglected, pro-environmental action cannot rely on personal choice only. The reality is that many people are constrained by systemic, social and economical factors that hold them back from making better choices. So rather than targeting individuals, we need to start influencing social norms through networks of partners and addressing systemic injustices, which in turn will encourage behavioural shifts from individuals.
4. The bigger your audience, the better.
Don't blame yourself if you thought that landing on a prime time TV program or featuring on the first page of the New York Times would have a bigger impact than your local news paper. I thought that too, and to some extent still do. However, there is evidence that reaching a big audience is not as effective in changing behaviours and establishing new social norms as speaking to your local audience. In fact, if you want to reach a new audience, you need to focus on small and local communities and understand how they behave, what they care about, how they function and tailor your message to that. If you focus only on the message you are trying to convey, you might encounter resistance if what you are communicating is not yet socially accepted by the group. What is crucial is HOW the information is shared within a network, not so much WHAT.
To summarise, conventional science communication practices have been shown not to be effective at producing the desired results. And in some cases, even if well intentioned they can do more damage than good.
In a second blog post, you will learn about four alternative solutions for effective science communication including concrete examples that you can apply with your own research.
Visit The Gonzalez Lab website regularly and sign up to the newsletter below to be notified about new blog posts.