Presented at SXSW 2016 by ennifer Briselli Managing Director, Experience Design
People generally trust science; but our perceptions of scientific expertise and policy implications are colored by our values. Human Centered Design - Interference from outsiders limits personal freedom. Collective assistance and welfare structures hold us back. Freedom and competition lead to human resourcefulness and innovation. People should fend for themselves and leave others alone. Human interaction and compassion are important. People have a responsibility to take care of each other. Collaboration and solidarity make strong, safe communities. Everyone should be willing to both help and depend on others.
11. “”
The saddest aspect of life right
now is that science gathers
knowledge faster than society
gathers wisdom.
Isaac Asimov
12.
13. so, the problem with science communication must be…
people are in denial
people are misinformed
people are irrational
the problem is…
prove scientific consensus, out-reason them all!
more facts! better education! science literacy!
let’s just ignore them… maybe they’ll disappear.
26. “How much risk do you think climate change poses?”
perceived
risk
science literacy
egalitarian communitarian
hierarchical individualist
Prediction:
better informed
more agreement
with consensus
27. “How much risk do you think climate change poses?”
perceived
risk
science literacy
egalitarian communitarian
hierarchical individualist
Result: for some,
better educated
more polarized views
opposing consensus
28. Overcoming a knowledge deficit or debunking
misinformation doesn’t guarantee a change in
attitudes or behavior.
Misinformation
30. “All that stuff I was taught
about evolution and
embryology and the big bang
theory, all that is lies straight
from the pit of Hell.”
Rep. Paul Broun
R-GA & member the House Science Committee
2007-2015
31.
32.
33. There is far too much information in the world for a human to
process, so we offload some of that processing through
identity-protective (“cultural”) cognition
which prompts us to align our perceptions with trusted or
symbolic sources within our own social in-groups
34.
35. Rationality ≠ accuracy.
Identity-protective cognition is perfectly rational. It
helps us make sense of the world, though it leads
to errant perceptions of science & risk.
Irrational
49. communitarianindividualist
Interference from
outsiders limits
personal freedom.
Collective assistance
and welfare structures
hold us back.
Freedom and competition
lead to human
resourcefulness and
innovation.
People should fend
for themselves and
leave others alone.
Human interaction
and compassion are
important.
People have a
responsibility to take
care of each other.
Collaboration and
solidarity make strong,
safe communities.
Everyone should be
willing to both help and
depend on others.
50. hierarchical
egalitarian
It’s ok to acknowledge
and even emphasize
differences.
It’s ok to distribute wealth and duty
according to class or expertise.
Roles should be differentiated in a
traditional manner.
Policy and social conventions
should support traditional
hierarchies and stability.
Discrimination is harmful.
Everyone deserves equal
representation in duty and fair
distribution of wealth.
Everyone should have access;
non-traditional roles are ok.
Everyone should be allowed to
participate; diversity is good.
56. communitarianindividualist
hierarchical
egalitarian
Affirming
Threatening
harsh criticism of traditional
roles & industry
unrestricted competition,
threats to social supports
interference, constraints on
personal freedoms
denial of participation,
access, status
stability, authority, expertise
collaboration,
community, stewardship
resourcefulness,
independence, privacy
equality, access, participation
63. One More Study:
Participants read an editorial story with specific framing:
anti-pollution or geo-engineering.
Then, they all read the same neutral, statistics-based article about climate change.
65. The anti-pollution priming story accentuated conventional
anti-commerce and anti-technology themes.
Hierarchical-Individualists find these values threatening;
they discounted the statistics in the second article & expressed
even stronger climate change denial.
The geo-engineering priming story accentuated themes like
human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit overcoming natural
limits on commerce.
Hierarchical-Individualists find these values affirming;
they accepted the statistics in the second article & expressed
stronger acceptance of climate change as a threat we should act
on.
66. Framing climate change messaging with
identity-affirming meanings
can mitigate resistance & polarization.
It’s human nature: whenever there is change, or progress, some folks will resist or fight it.. It’s not ideal but at least it’s predictable & consistent.
There is a lot of good work already being done to understand this phenomenon that we call “denial,” though it offers more descriptive accounts of denial from a historical perspective, and less from a cognitive or explanatory perspective. And, we see very little from a prescriptive perspective.
As designers, we first try to define our problem.. So let’s define this problem. We tend to make 3 assumptions about science communication challenges posed by science denial.
Let’s explore each of these three assumptions a little more.
We can prove consensus pretty well.
But some folks will always focus on this.
The only study linking MMR vaccines to autism was discredited as fraud and its author, Andrew Wakefield, has lost his medical license.
Yet, he is still considered a hero in small pockets of anti-vaccine groups– namely because he represents their values.
The following studies are from the Cultural Cognition Project at Yale, whose work is based on the cultural theory of risk as developed by Mary Douglas and Aaron Wildavsky.
The topics that people view as threatening tend to reflect their cultural values.
Kahan, Dan M., Jenkins-Smith, Hank and Braman, Donald, Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus (February 7, 2010). Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, pp. 147-74, 2011
Turns out– people assessed expertise based on whether the ‘expert’ expressed the view that aligned with their existing perceptions & values.
We might expect that when people learn more and understand better, it will bring more of them into consensus about climate change.
But in reality, many studies show that increased science literacy doesn’t lead to more consensus– in fact it increases polarization on already-polarized topics.
Can we just ignore people who we deem irrational?
Not if they’re in congress.
Or your boss.
Or your coworkers.
Not this kind of design.
This kind of design.
Some folks are already very good at designing communication and have shared helpful methods for us to do the same. Often it includes an emphasis on compelling narrative & storytelling.
Some people are already very good at being compelling.
But we might consider whether people like Bill Nye and Neil Tyson are in some ways preaching to the converted. Who are their fans? Who listens to what they say?
Rhetoric! Classical, Aristotelian rhetoric– not the “art of lying” as we use the word today. Classical rhetoric is the method of designing communication for a specific audience, based on really understanding that audience on a deep level.
That’s what’ designers do too!
Design as a “rhetorical” art = human-centered design.
We start with empathy. Empathy means understanding the perspective of the people we design for. And most importantly, seeing them as humans, not caricatures.
Let’s try to empathize with folks who don’t share our values.
And keep in mind, most people are not extreme in their values– we consider the extremes as way of understanding the model.
Self reflection– try it.
Keep in mind– we can develop empathetic understanding of someone and their values without necessarily agreeing with those values.
Changing values takes a long time— years, generations maybe. But changing attitudes is more doable— we can achieve attitude and behavior change without changing values– so designers and science communicators must decide what their priority is.
So how can we keep applying the design process to this challenge? We understand values– how do we deal with it? We try things out.
More broadly, we know there are certain themes that are particularly affirming and threatening for each set of values.
If we try to avoid these threatening themes,
And include these affirming themes, we may be able to reach people we’re trying to reach.
Case study: interactive informational piece about vaccines comparing vaccination to wearing seat belts. Metaphor can make it easier to include number themes under one unified message (rather than trying to design different messaging for different worldviews, which would be impractical and duplicitous).
The biggest insight: Different people grabbed onto different things in the messaging– each worldview seemed to resonate with different themes dependent on their values.
If we imagine applying human-centered design to science communication, we can try this process over and over again– empathizing, defining our goals, trying ideas and seeing how they play out– then refining and repeating.
This leads to a generally applicable strategy: not an algorithm or recipe, but more equivalent to a set of tools and methods that can be used to create unique recipes as each situation calls for.
By the way, others continue to test these ideas too:
Kahan, Dan M. and Jenkins-Smith, Hank C. and Tarantola, Tor and Silva, Carol L and Braman, Donald, Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-channel Model of Science Communication (January 9, 2012). Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Sci., 658, 193-222 (2015),
Remember, you’re designing for other humans.
If you approach science communication challenges with human-centered design thinking, you can achieve a lot.