Four unconventional strategies for effective science communication
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
In the previous post we analysed four common myths when it comes to science communication. We saw how beliefs about reaching a wide audience, presenting science-backed facts and speaking to people individually, can often have the opposite effect to that intended.
So what can we do to actually change people's minds?
Here are four alternatives to the common (science) communication myths.
1. GO SOCIAL
And by social, I don't mean "social media" but social groups. Which is, in essence, the opposite of addressing individuals and hoping for a change. The reason why is because humans are better at coming to conclusions in group settings, where points of views and opinions are argued and challenged with open discussions, thus diminishing confirmation bias. Although, for this to happen, it is crucial to ensure diversity of thought, gender, race, and socioeconomic background to avoid groupthink and echo chambers. For example, before starting a new research project, you should look at bringing together a group of people including both policymakers, lawyers, but also researchers and stakeholders for a meeting where an inter- and trans-disciplinary collaboration can happen.
2. GO TO THE HEART
We have often been told that following our emotions is counterproductive and will lead us astray. In reality, the opposite is often true: emotions and personal experience play a crucial role in decision making, and research has found that intuitive decisions lead to better outcomes than carefully analysed ones. In fact, years of working in a specific field give a level of expertise that is just as valuable as numbers and data when it comes to decision-making. In the same way, reaching people with storytelling and engaging with their values and emotions has been proven as a much more effective way of communicating to shift behaviour and attitudes. For example, don't talk only about the general benefits of what you are proposing, but make it clear how this benefits your listener specifically! Let’s say you want farmers to adopt a new, more eco friendly, farming technique: don't talk only about the benefits for the environment, but show what's in it for them, like an increase in land productivity and therefore in sales and how that will benefit their families and community.
3. CHANGE ATTITUDE
No, not yours, that of your audience. Whether a group of citizens, your colleagues at work or students on campus, humans are social beings and their attitude changes depending on the environment they are in. So, to change attitudes you need to change the environment. Changing the social environment enables you to promote (or discourage) (un)desirable behaviours. In fact, learning by doing is arguably the best strategy when it comes to a school setting, and it is also true outside the academic context. For example, the United Kingdom has seen the rise of the Plant Based movement, where elite universities, such as Imperial College London and Cambridge, and city councils, like Oxford and Exeter, are making their events mostly, if not fully, plant based, thus encouraging, and more importantly, normalising, a climate positive behaviour amongst young individuals and citizens.
4. GO NICHE OR GO HOME
Remember how, in the previous post, I talked about how reaching a big audience is not that effective and how you should instead focus on small and local communities? This is because we get influenced by our immediate social circle, like family, friends and neighbours. While there is tons of research about this phenomenon, I would like to give you two examples from my personal life. During my highschool years, it was trendy to have a certain brand of backpacks and because many of my friends had one, I eventually bought it too. In the same way, I lived in a semi closed neighbourhood and when my dad decided to put solar panels on our rooftop, a few more neighbours got interested, learned more about the benefits and ended up doing the same shortly after. This is due to something that each one of us has experienced at least once in life: peer pressure, or in this case: peer influence. When it comes to communicating science, you can use the same strategy: instead of going to your national television and trying to reach the highest ranking politician, go to your local council, or even better, a local group relevant to your research (farmers is a good example since they tend to be "tied" to the land they work on) and incentivise them, through storytelling and touching upon their values, to adopt a new approach. This bottom-up strategy makes broad scale adoption less controversial as higher ranking individuals will not fear a backlash since the smaller communities have already been converted to the cause you are promoting.
As humans, we are hardwired to resist change. Scientifically speaking, our brain will release reactive hormones for fear, flight or fight because it interprets change as a threat. Change also means facing something new, which takes us out of our comfort zone, requiring effort. Therefore, change is not easy and asking individuals to do it anyways is no easy feat. However, it also isn't impossible and the latest behavioural and communication research are making big leaps in the science of how we change our minds. What I took from the above mentioned paper is that how we communicate is oftentimes more important than what we communicate. And that involves a communication centred on PACS:
Personal: speak to the emotions and values of your audience
Action: provide an environment that promotes the desired behaviour
Community: we are easily influenced by our close communities so start from there
Social: problem solving and decision making has better outcomes in social contexts rather than individually