Aaron Fellows (ENVS/Economics ’16) & Jim Proctor
The evolving modes by which scholars and activists communicate information have inspired multiple bodies of research, including research into environmental communication (Hansen 2011). The schools of thought which these modes of communication represent reasonably parallel the evolution of contemporary western environmentalism over the last half-century, as well as modes of communication in fields such as the sciences. This allows us to trace a progression of models of communication, which we will group into three: the classical model, the framing model, and contemporary models, followed by an annotated bibliography.
The classical (deficit) model
One predominant approach to scientific communication is what is known as the deficit model—the notion that public skepticism and lack of support for scientific knowledge and science-based policy is grounded in inadequate scientific understanding, which when addressed will result in public support. A longstanding critic of the deficit model is sociologist of science Brian Wynne (1992, 1993, 2014); for a defense, see Dickson (2005). Classical environmentalism of the 1960s and 1970s, as well as more recent incarnations of classical environmentalism, tended to rely on a similar method of communication, positing that the public could best be inspired to action by hammering home the facts of the issues. This mode of communication often tended to rely on innately shocking statistics to make their point loudly. A prominent example is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth (2006); for a representative clip of his movie by the same name, see here. The deficit model has generally been discredited in environmental communication (Hulme 2009) and science communication more broadly (Kahan et al. 2011, Klein 2014), and recent research suggests that the common apocalyptic tone of deficit-model environmental communication may be less effective than more positively-oriented communications (Feinberg and Willer 2011).
The framing model
The deficit model rested on the assumption that humans, as rational beings, would take the facts provided and draw predictable and obvious conclusions from them. But this assumed that all people receive information in the same way. A more recent model based on the science of framing is built on greater sensitivity toward the contexts in which humans receive information. Advocates of the framing model argue that reasoning is often automatic and subject to the individual’s emotional and cognitive landscape surrounding the issue at hand. One well-known scholar who has advocated the framing model is cognitive scientist George Lakoff, whose book Don’t Think of an Elephant! (2008) summarize the framing model for laypeople and activists; he has also connected the framing model to environmentalism (Lakoff 2010). A prominent example of the framing model in environmentalism is Global Warming’s Six Americas (Maibach et. al. 2009), and it is a widespread model at present, with some highly sophisticated applications (e.g., Kahan et al 2012), though more research into cross-cultural environmental communication (e.g., Thakadu and Tau 2012) is needed, and framing alone may not lead to the public mobilization environmentalists desire (Cox 2010), in spite of considerable research now evidencing this diversity in environmental approaches (e.g., AP & NORC 2015). The framing model is relatively sophisticated in its understanding of diverse public audiences, yet largely assumes, as does the deficit model, that communication is a one-way flow of information from experts to the public. Challenges to this assumption constitute one of the major emphases of contemporary models of environmental communication.
Contemporary (dialogic) models
A recent overview of scientific communication summarized contemporary trends as moving from “deficit to dialogue” (Stilgoe et al. 2014, 5), thus constituting a critique of both the deficit and framing models. And indeed, some recent arguments in environmental communication (e.g., Bain et al. 2012) suggest alternative strategies that include far more than proclamation of scientific facts—take a look, for instance, at the AAAS Center for Public Engagement with Science & Technology for a highly dialogical definition of public engagement. Central to these strategies is listening as well as speaking—quite different from the models above.
But what sort of two-way dialogue is explored in contemporary models? Perhaps one of the most exciting recent dialogic approaches to communication around controversial political and moral issues was made popular via a number of news outlets, notably This American Life in spring 2015—and then its primary scientific evidence (LaCour and Green 2014), summarized via the phrase “dialogue opens the door to attitude change,” was later retracted (see also TAL post and Wikipedia article). But more recent studies have validated a variant of this approach: as This American Life again reported in spring 2016, canvassers in Florida working to reduce transphobia found lasting effects when they engaged in genuine two-way conversation, encouraging both parties to actively take the perspective of others (Brookman and Kalla 2016).
To our knowledge, these recent dialogic models have not yet been fully tested for controversial environmental issues such as climate, environmental justice, and biodiversity protection. There appears to be considerable promise, offset by understandable challenges:
- The video Accidental Courtesy discusses how a black musician engaged in successful dialogue with KKK members
- A number of efforts at deliberative democracy (e.g., see this one in Oregon) engage citizens in issue-based dialogue
- The organization Narrative 4 supports what it calls radical empathy, with participants around the world exchanging personal stories
- A story on gun victims and gun advocates, however, suggests that radical empathy does not necessarily change hearts and minds
Dialogic models may be highly relevant even when communicating non-controversial environmental topics, as listening may provide important background context prior to communicating these topics, or important followup information on how the topics were received and/or acted upon. These cases are similar to the framing model in that the recipient’s context matters, but they go a step farther in partnering with the recipients of communication, to the point that they become collaborators more than recipients!
Dialogic approaches to communication may ultimately be the best way for those concerned about environmental issues to engage with others, as they are the only approaches that take people seriously and listen to them—an important democratic principle we must not forget.
Annotated bibliography
All references cited above are listed here in alphabetical order by author last name, with the publisher’s supplied abstract preceded by a brief note on relevance, as well as a link to help you to obtain each publication.
Abstract: [A recent empirical study evidencing diversity of American environmental attitudes and practices] Contrary to common rhetoric, the American public is not simply polarized into pro- and anti-environment groups, according to a new study by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research and The Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies. Instead, the study identifies nine distinct types of Americans, each with a unique understanding of the environment, perspectives on key environmental issues, and different environmental behaviors. It finds that Americans’ environmental attitudes are partly motivated by political ideology and religion, but are also rooted in how individuals perceive, interact with, and experience nature.
Abstract: [An approach to climate communication that doesn’t rely on deficit-model assumptions that the public needs to believe in the facts of climate change] A sizeable (and growing) proportion of the public in Western democracies deny the existence of anthropogenic climate change. It is commonly assumed that convincing deniers that climate change is real is necessary for them to act pro-environmentally. However, the likelihood of ‘conversion’ using scientific evidence is limited because these attitudes increasingly reflect ideological positions. An alternative approach is to identify outcomes of mitigation efforts that deniers find important. People have strong interests in the welfare of their society, so deniers may act in ways supporting mitigation efforts where they believe these efforts will have positive societal effects. In Study 1, climate change deniers (N=155) intended to act more pro-environmentally where they thought climate change action would create a society where people are more considerate and caring, and where there is greater economic/technological development. Study 2 (N=347) replicated this experimentally, showing that framing climate change action as increasing consideration for others, or improving economic/technological development, led to greater pro-environmental action intentions than a frame emphasizing avoiding the risks of climate change. To motivate deniers’ pro-environmental actions, communication should focus on how mitigation efforts can promote a better society, rather than focusing on the reality of climate change and averting its risks.
Abstract: [A recent study offering empirical confirmation of a more dialogic approach to public communication] Existing research depicts intergroup prejudices as deeply ingrained, requiring intense intervention to lastingly reduce. Here, we show that a single approximately 10-minute conversation encouraging actively taking the perspective of others can markedly reduce prejudice for at least 3 months. We illustrate this potential with a door-to-door canvassing intervention in South Florida targeting antitransgender prejudice. Despite declines in homophobia, transphobia remains pervasive. For the intervention, 56 canvassers went door to door encouraging active perspective-taking with 501 voters at voters’ doorsteps. A randomized trial found that these conversations substantially reduced transphobia, with decreases greater than Americans’ average decrease in homophobia from 1998 to 2012. These effects persisted for 3 months, and both transgender and nontransgender canvassers were effective. The intervention also increased support for a nondiscrimination law, even after exposing voters to counterarguments.
Abstract: [A critique of the framing model in environmental communication] Recent calls for communication scholars and practitioners to identify effective communication means for mobilizing constituencies to address climate change often fall to distinguish between communicative acts that “mobilize” and mobilization that enables a particular end. The latter presupposes an account of the intentional or strategic alignment of mobilization, that is, the predicted or assumed relationships among a mobilized public, the mode(s) of influence or leverage this creates, and the expected consequences of such influence, i.e., how specific communicative efforts are related to outcomes or “effects” within a system. This essay argues that the neglect of strategic alignments in some recent climate communication campaigns have caused these campaigns to be non-adaptive at the scale and/or urgency required. Drawing on case studies of the 2007 Step It Up initiative and the Sierra Club’s “Beyond Coal” campaign, the essay proposes viewing the strategic as an heuristic for identifying openings within networks of contingent relationships and the potential of certain communicative efforts to interrupt or leverage change within systems of power.
Abstract: [A defense of the deficit model of public understanding of science, which has largely been dismissed by academics as simplistic] A democratic dialogue over science-related issues is critical for modern societies. But providing reliable information in an accessible way is an essential prerequisite for this to occur.
Abstract: [Provides empirical challenge to apocalyptic environmental messaging] Though scientific evidence for the existence of global warming continues to mount, in the United States and other countries belief in global warming has stagnated or even decreased in recent years. One possible explanation for this pattern is that information about the potentially dire consequences of global warming threatens deeply held beliefs that the world is just, orderly, and stable. Individuals overcome this threat by denying or discounting the existence of global warming, and this process ultimately results in decreased willingness to counteract climate change.Two experiments provide support for this explanation of the dynamics of belief in global warming, suggesting that less dire messaging could be more effective for promoting public understanding of climate-change research.
Abstract: [A well-known example of the deficit model in environmental communication] An Inconvenient Truth–Gore’s groundbreaking, battle cry of a follow-up to the bestselling Earth in the Balance–is being published to tie in with a documentary film of the same name. Both the book and film were inspired by a series of multimedia presentations on global warming that Gore created and delivers to groups around the world. With this book, Gore, who is one of our environmental heroes–and a leading expert–brings together leading-edge research from top scientists around the world; photographs, charts, and other illustrations; and personal anecdotes and observations to document the fast pace and wide scope of global warming. He presents, with alarming clarity and conclusiveness–and with humor, too–that the fact of global warming is not in question and that its consequences for the world we live in will be disastrous if left unchecked. This riveting new book–written in an accessible, entertaining style–will open the eyes of even the most skeptical.
Abstract: [A broad overview of research into environmental communication] Surveying environmental communication research of the past four decades, the article delineates some of the key trends and approaches in research which has sought to address the role played by media and communication processes in the public and political definition, elaboration and contestation of environmental issues and problems. It is argued: (1) that there is a need to reconnect the traditional, but traditionally also relative distinct, three major foci of communication research on media and environmental issues: the production/construction of media messages and public communications; the content/messages of media communication; and the impact of media and public communication on public/political understanding and action with regard to the environment; and (2) that there is a need for media and communications research on environmental issues/controversy to reconnect with traditional sociological concerns about power and inequality in the public sphere, particularly in terms of showing how economic, political and cultural power significantly affects the ability to participate in and influence the nature of public ‘mediated’ communication about the environment.
Abstract: [Book summarizes contemporary environmental theory in the context of climate change] Climate change is not ‘a problem’ waiting for ‘a solution’. It is an environmental, cultural and political phenomenon which is re-shaping the way we think about ourselves, our societies and humanity’s place on Earth. Drawing upon twenty-five years of professional work as an international climate change scientist and public commentator, Mike Hulme provides a unique insider’s account of the emergence of this phenomenon and the diverse ways in which it is understood. He uses different standpoints from science, economics, faith, psychology, communication, sociology, politics and development to explain why we disagree about climate change. In this way he shows that climate change, far from being simply an ‘issue’ or a ‘threat’, can act as a catalyst to revise our perception of our place in the world. Why We Disagree About Climate Change is an important contribution to the ongoing debate over climate change and its likely impact on our lives.
Abstract: [A general presentation of cultural cognition theory, which challenges the deficit model] Why do members of the public disagree – sharply and persistently – about facts on which expert scientists largely agree? We designed a study to test a distinctive explanation: the cultural cognition of scientific consensus. The ‘cultural cognition of risk’ refers to the tendency of individuals to form risk perceptions that are congenial to their values. The study presents both correlational and experimental evidence confirming that cultural cognition shapes individuals’ beliefs about the existence of scientific consensus, and the process by which they form such beliefs, relating to climate change, the disposal of nuclear wastes, and the effect of permitting concealed possession of handguns. The implications of this dynamic for science communication and public policy‐making are discussed.
Abstract: [A sophisticated study of framing based on cultural cognition theory] We conducted a two-nation study (United States, n = 1500; England, n = 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO2 emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned to a control condition.
Abstract: There’s a simple theory underlying much of American politics. It sits hopefully at the base of almost every speech, every op-ed, every article, and every panel discussion. It courses through the…
Abstract: [An earlier empirical study of dialogic models of communication, notoriously retracted after evidence emerged of falsified data] Can a single conversation change minds on divisive social issues, such as same-sex marriage? A randomized placebo-controlled trial assessed whether gay (n = 22) or straight (n = 19) messengers were effective at encouraging voters (n = 972) to support same-sex marriage and whether attitude change persisted and spread to others in voters’ social networks. The results, measured by an unrelated panel survey, show that both gay and straight canvassers produced large effects initially, but only gay canvassers’ effects persisted in 3-week, 6-week, and 9-month follow-ups. We also find strong evidence of within-household transmission of opinion change, but only in the wake of conversations with gay canvassers. Contact with gay canvassers further caused substantial change in the ratings of gay men and lesbians more generally. These large, persistent, and contagious effects were confirmed by a follow-up experiment. Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change. Dialogue opens the door to attitude change Personal contact between in-group and out-group individuals of equivalent status can reduce perceived differences and thus improve intergroup relations. LaCour and Green demonstrate that simply a 20-minute conversation with a gay canvasser produced a large and sustained shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage for Los Angeles County residents. Surveys showed persistent change up to 9 months after the initial conversation. Indeed, the magnitude of the shift for the person who answered the door was as large as the difference between attitudes in Georgia and Massachusetts. Science, this issue p. 1366 Contact with minorities, coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them, can produce lasting opinion change. Contact with minorities, coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them, can produce lasting opinion change.
Abstract: [Lakoff’s classic introduces framing to a broad public audience] Don’t Think of an Elephant! is the definitive handbook for understanding what happened in the 2004 election and communicating effectively about key issues facing America today. Author George Lakoff has become a key advisor to the Democratic party, helping them develop their message and frame the political debate. In this book Lakoff explains how conservatives think, and how to counter their arguments. He outlines in detail the traditional American values that progressives hold, but are often unable to articulate. Lakoff also breaks down the ways in which conservatives have framed the issues, and provides examples of how progressives can reframe the debate. Lakoff’s years of research and work with environmental and political leaders have been distilled into this essential guide, which shows progressives how to think in terms of values instead of programs, and why people vote their values and identities, often against their best interests. Don’t Think of An Elephant! is the antidote to the last forty years of conservative strategizing and the right wing’s stranglehold on political dialogue in the United States. Read it, take action—and help take America back.
Abstract: [One of the framing model’s chief protagonists applies it to environmental communication; abstract extracted from conclusion] Successful social movements require the coherence provided by coherent framing. Think of the union movement, the anti-war (or peace) movement, the civil rights movement, or the feminist movement. The basic ideas are simple and straightforward. …The same should be true of environmentalism. Environmentalism: The natural world is being destroyed and it is a moral imperative to preserve and reconstitute as much of it as possible as soon as possible.… what has made social movements effective is a simple basic framing.…Truth must be framed effectively to be seen at all. That is why an understanding of framing matters.
Abstract: [A well-known application of the framing model to environmental communication; abstract from executive summary] One of the first rules of effective communication is to “know thy audience.” Climate change public communication and engagement efforts must start with the fundamental recognition that people are different and have different psychological, cultural, and political reasons for acting – or not acting – to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This report identifies Global Warming’s Six Americas: six unique audiences within the American public that each responds to the issue in their own distinct way. The six audiences were identified using a large nationally representative survey of American adults conducted in the fall of 2008. The survey questionnaire included extensive, in-depth measures of the public’s climate change beliefs, attitudes, risk perceptions, motivations, values, policy prefer- ences, behaviors, and underlying barriers to action. The Six Americas are distinguishable on all these dimensions, and display very different levels of engagement with the issue. They also vary in size – ranging from as small as 7 percent to as large as 33 percent of the adult population. The Alarmed (18%) are fully convinced of the reality and seriousness of climate change and are already taking individual, consumer, and political action to address it. The Concerned (33%) – the largest of the six Americas – are also convinced that global warming is happening and a serious problem, but have not yet engaged the issue personally. Three other Americas – the Cautious (19%), the Disengaged (12%) and the Doubtful (11%) – represent different stages of understanding and acceptance of the problem, and none are actively involved. The final America–the Dismissive (7%) – are very sure it is not happening and are actively involved as opponents of a national effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This report introduces these Six Americas by briefly describing each audience and highlighting how they differ from one another; it concludes with detailed demographic, attitudinal, and behavioral profiles of each group. This research provides essential knowledge that can be leveraged by climate educators and communicators throughout American society, including local, state, and national governments, academic institutions, environmental organizations, businesses, faith groups, doctors and scientists, and the media. Successfully addressing this challenge will require a diversity of messages, messengers, and methods, each tailored to meet the needs of different target audiences. This research provides a solid foundation, grounded in social science, to facilitate the changes required to achieve a transition to a low-carbon future.
Abstract: [Recent overview of research into public understanding of science] This introductory essay looks back on the two decades since the journal Public Understanding of Science was launched. Drawing on the invited commentaries in this special issue, we can see narratives of continuity and change around the practice and politics of public engagement with science. Public engagement would seem to be a necessary but insufficient part of opening up science and its governance. Those of us who have been involved in advocating, conducting and evaluating public engagement practice could be accused of over- promising. If we, as social scientists, are going to continue a normative commitment to the idea of public engagement, we should therefore develop new lines of argument and analysis. Our support for the idea of public engagement needs qualifying, as part of a broader, more ambitious interest in the idea of publicly engaged science.
Abstract: [An example of research into cross-cultural environmental communication] The study explored environmental communication strategies within the Okavango Delta, northwest Botswana. A survey instrument was administered to 120 respondents, randomly sampled across four villages. The findings show that respondents obtain environmental conservation information from diverse source organizations. Agencies use a multimix approach that utilizes different channels of communication, such as mass media and group channels. Statistically significant associations were found among the radio audience by education and among the television audience by age, education, and gender; and no statistically significance association was found between the kgotla group channel and the three demographic variables. Findings suggest that the interventions have promoted proenvironmental behaviors and attitudes among the respondents. Implications for environmental communication practice and directions for future research are discussed.
Abstract: [A good case study of how the deficit model sorely underestimates public understanding of science] This paper draws general insights into the public reception of scientific knowledge from a case study of Cumbrian sheep farmers’ responses to scientific advice about the restrictions introduced after the Chernobyl radioactive fallout. The analysis identifies several substantive factors which influence the credibility of scientific communication. Starting from the now-accepted point that public uptake of science depends primarily upon the trust and credibility public groups are prepared to invest in scientific institutions and representatives, the paper observes that these are contingent upon the social relationships and identities which people feel to be affected by scientific knowledge, which never comes free of social interests or implications. The case study shows laypeople capable of extensive informal reflection upon their social relationships towards scientific experts, and on the epistemological status of their own `local’ knowledge in relation to `outside’ knowledge. Public uptake of science might be improved if scientific institutions expressed an equivalent reflexive discourse in the public domain.
Abstract: [A theoretical defense of public understanding of science based on reflexivity vs. the deficit model] This paper attempts to advance the notion of reflexivity as a key element of improving current understanding of the public understanding of science problem, and for improving the relations between science and its public more generally. By reflexivity here I mean more systematic processes of exploration of the prior commitments framing knowledge, in the way it has been introduced in sociological debates on modernity, rather than the more methodological-epistemological principle of consistency as it has been developed in sociology of science. The dominant framing of the public understanding of science issue corresponds with wider assumptions about the relationship between science and laypeople. Laypeople are assumed to be essentially defensive, risk- and uncertainty-averse, and unreflexive. Science on the other hand is assumed to be the epitome of reflexive self-criticism. This paper draws upon research in PUS to show that laypeople display considerable reflexive negotiation of their identity in relationships to science and scientific institutions. The latter, on the other hand, show considerable deep resistance to recognizing and reconsidering the unstated models of the public which structure their scientific discourses. This only makes the public understanding problem worse. Reflexive institutions would be needed to place science-public interactions on a more constructive footing.
Abstract: [A recent update on public understanding of science by one of its leading scholars, suggesting that the deficit model still persists] This paper reviews some changes and continuities in science–society relations which have shaped this journal’s birth and development. I argue that the main focus on publics has been developed with insufficient primary attention to problematising what is meant by ‘science’ in its variable public forms, including discourses. We cannot understand ‘publics’ in relation to ‘science’, unless we also ask, searchingly, what is it that they experience as such, in all its multiple self-contradictions and confusions? Thus I reiterate the point made in the inaugural issue, still neglected in mainstream science and policy, that ‘science’ needs to be critically addressed in several dimensions, as part of public understanding of science research. First, instrumental pragmatic scientific meanings, useful in their own parochial situations, should not be given automatic sovereignty in public issues. Second, public concerns where they exist should not be interpreted and judged against this presumptively entrenched scientistic normative baseline.