In Public Opinion and Political Participation in the Climate Change Debate, Matthew Nisbet reviews factors influencing how people understand and act upon science and policy issues, in a preprint of his chapter:
Nisbet, M.C. (2011). Public Opinion and Political Participation. In D. Schlosberg, J. Dryzek, & R. Norgaard (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Although he focuses on climate change, the principles he describes are more broadly relevant to communication and engagement, or to understanding and acting on new knowledge in general.
Knowledge isn’t action:
only a small proportion possess the type of opinion intensity that motivates direct participation
Information access isn’t knowledge:
the multi-tasking facilitated by hand-held devices is negatively related to learning and recall
Valuing information isn’t the same as evaluating information:
individuals are ‘cognitive misers,’ relying on personal experience, values, social influences such as friends or colleagues, personal identity, and the most readily available information
He then summarizes these influences:
People have multiple schema[s]… which can be triggered by conversations, personal observation, and direct experience
tailoring communication to these mental models can improve the ability of individuals and groups to reach decisions and to take actions, especially when statistical information is paired with affective, personally relevant images
Hierarchists [worry about] threats to those they respect in power, to established order in society, and to status quo practices
Individualists [worry about] unwise restrictions on markets, enterprise, and personal freedom.
[Those with] egalitarian and communitarian values [worry about] the need to manage markets and industry in favor of the collective good and to protect the most vulnerable
If the information doesn’t fit, it won’t stick.
a specific media frame is only influential if it is relevant—or applicable—to the audience’s preexisting interpretations and schema
Knowing how to act matters more than knowing why it is.
understanding how to take actions or to get involved on an issue [is] generally more important to decision making and behavior [than knowledge about the causes of a problem]
- Interpretative Communities
Whom you know affects what you know.
Different interpretative communities tend to prefer their own ideologically like-minded news and opinion media
There’s a slight irony in the fact that the initiatives he describes for how to apply these principles to promote understanding and action seem a bit less well developed than the principles themselves. But he does offer this guideline:
the ideal approach… [establishes] an iterative dialogue between stakeholders and experts, where the experts can explain uncertainty and the ways it is likely to be misinterpreted [and] the stakeholders in turn can explain their decision-making criteria as well as their own local knowledge
More recommendations along these lines are critical, especially considering the backfire effect. Knowing that risk discussion can backfire on building consensus should remind us to tread gently when confronting uncertainty, feelings of lack of control, and conflicting beliefs.