Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies

Hart, P. Sol; Nisbet, Erik C.

doi:10.1037/e578192014-270

Cited by 373 publications

(547 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

479

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective researchers recognise that the evidence does not speak for itself and that a 'deficit model' approach-transmit evidence from experts to non-specialists to change their understanding and perception of a problem-is ineffective (Hart and Nisbet, 2012). Rather, to communicate well is to know your audience (Cairney and Kwiatkowski, 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) employs over 2000 scientists and seeks to maximise the value and impact of research in the EU policy process. To that end, its Knowledge management for policy (KMP) initiative synthesised the insights of a large amount of interdisciplinary work on the 'evidence-policy interface' to promote a new skills and training agenda. It developed this training initially for Commission staff, but many of its insights are relevant to organisations which try to combine research, policymaking, management, and communication skills to improve the value and use of research in policy. We recommend that such organisations should develop teams of researchers, policymakers, and 'knowledge brokers' to produce eight key practices: (1) research synthesis, to generate 'state of the art' knowledge on a policy problem; (2) management of expert communities, to maximise collaboration; (3) understanding policymaking, to know when and how to present evidence; (4) interpersonal skills, to focus on relationships and interaction; (5) engagement, to include citizens and stakeholders; (6) effective communication of knowledge; (7) monitoring and evaluation, to identify the impact of evidence on policy; and (8) policy advice, to know how to present knowledge effectively and ethically. No one possesses all skills relevant to all these practices. Rather, we recommend that organisations at the evidence-policy interface produce teams of people with different backgrounds, perspectives, and complementary skills.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Prior attitudes, such as partisanship or ideology, can strongly bias how individuals process climate change information through selective exposure (66). As a result, equally intelligent citizens may use the information that they have received through communication to support their own value predispositions, thus expanding ideological belief gaps (51,67,68). When individuals are motivated to discount messages that contradict their prior beliefs, they will invest effort into mentally denigrating and counterarguing this incongruent information, thereby reaffirming their current position, regardless of the message (69).…”

Section: Imcib In Context: Global Climate Changementioning

confidence: 99%

An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs

Eveland

Cooper

2013

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do people develop and maintain their beliefs about science? Decades of social science research exist to help us answer this question. The Integrated Model of Communication Influence on Beliefs presented here combines multiple theories that have considered aspects of this process into a comprehensive model to explain how individuals arrive at their scientific beliefs. In this article, we (i) summarize what is known about how science is presented in various news and entertainment media forms; (ii) describe how individuals differ in their choices to be exposed to various forms and sources of communication; (iii) discuss the implications of how individuals mentally process information on the effects of communication; (iv) consider how communication effects can be altered depending on background characteristics and motivations of individuals; and (v) emphasize that the process of belief formation is not unidirectional but rather, feeds back on itself over time. We conclude by applying the Integrated Model of Communication Influence on Beliefs to the complex issue of beliefs about climate change.knowledge | learning D ecades of scholarship in communication and related fields have examined the role of mass and interpersonal communication as means by which members of the public acquire information or beliefs about a variety of important topics (1, 2). However, there are several properties of this literature that make it less than ideal for succinctly answering the larger question of how scientific beliefs are formed. First, there is a tendency to focus research on a particular form of communication in isolation from others (e.g., news rather than entertainment or media rather than interpersonal discussion), with an emphasis on media effects. Second, most empirical models offer snapshots of associations among variables (3, 4) rather than consideration of how feedback processes connect communication and beliefs in both causal directions. Third, the models tested often seem to have been developed on the basis of the data available in a particular study rather than on a broader consideration of the theoretical processes involved. In those cases in which the models do seem more comprehensive, they usually eschew formal prediction in favor of offering more abstract frameworks and encouraging data exploration (5). Overall, although there is a wealth of insight and evidence relating communication and beliefs, it tends to be scattered because of emphasis on particular subprocesses rather than emphasis on the whole.Sociologist Robert Merton [ref. 6, pp. 52-53 (emphasis in original)] argued that "theories of the middle range hold the largest promise, provided that the search for them is coupled with a pervasive concern with consolidating special theories into more general sets of concepts and mutually consistent propositions" (6). The current body of research on media selection and impact on beliefs, which has, to date, been relatively circumscribed by focusing attention on subprocesses, would seem to be ripe for a comprehens...

show abstract

“…For example, opinion polls suggest sizeable portions of UK and US publics 'doubt' climate science (Carrington, 2011;Pew Center, 2009;Stafford, 2010; UPI, 2011), trust for climate science is much lower than trust in science (Scientific American, 2010), and citizens and government officials are generally less concerned than climate scientists (Weber, 2010). 3 Given the strength of motivated reasoning against climate change and the intractability (and irrationality) of some individual's views (Hart & Nisbet 2012), some segments of this demographic may be unreachable; it would be unfair to expect researchers to overcome such barriers. However, public engagement (research-related interaction outside one's personal/professional networks) may help counter the undermining of scientific credibility and reduce the likelihood of research misrepresentation.…”

Section: Public Credibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

For research to positively impact society, it must be scientifically credible. The researcher plays a key role in establishing and maintaining credibility, particularly in the climate change field. This paper provides a structure for relating the credibility of researchers themselves to that of research outputs, analysing 'researcher credibility' with reference to three overlapping domains: personal, professional, and public. The researcher's role in each domain is considered in a reflexive way, examining the research process and the researcher's actions. Varied definitions of researcher credibility and possible means to achieve it in each domain are discussed, drawing on relevant cross-disciplinary literature. We argue that, in certain contexts, the actions of researchers can have a direct impact on the credibility of their research. There is scope for broadening researcher credibility to include more public-oriented behaviours. This, however, may be contentious and problematic: there are potential conflicts between public action and professional credibility, with the latter usually taking precedence. By contrast, though personal action (or inaction) rarely affects professional credibility, researchers' personal behaviours may influence public perceptions of research credibility and the importance of addressing climate change.

show abstract

Boomerang effects in science communication: How motivated reasoning and identity cues amplify opinion polarization about climate mitigation policies

Cited by 373 publications

References 0 publications

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Knowledge management for policy impact: the case of the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

An integrated model of communication influence on beliefs

Climate change research and credibility: balancing tensions across professional, personal, and public domains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About