Do I Believe in Climate Change? Well, It Depends on What You Want Me to Do About It.
By Sara Brinda, March 10, 2016
Imagine: You’re a communications professional, promoting a scientific study that predicts a global temperature increase due to climate change. I bet you have a pretty good idea of who is going to agree with the study prediction, and who will be skeptical, regardless of how it’s framed. Right?
Well, think again. A study led by Duke University’s Troy Campbell found that a scientific finding’s practical implications – not just the underlying facts – influence people’s likelihood of believing the science itself.
He spoke about his study, and what it means for social change communicators, at the recent frank2016 conference, where he won the $10,000 Prize for Research in Public Interest Communications based on an audience vote.
For the study, Campbell and his colleagues had a sample of self-identified Republicans read a statement asserting that global temperatures will rise 3.2 degrees in the 21st century. Then, half the Republicans read about a climate change solution: government regulations to reduce emissions. The other half of the group read about a different, more free-market-friendly solution: that industries in the United States could profit from fighting climate change, by leading the world in the development of green technology.
The participants were then asked whether they believed the statement predicting the global temperature increase. Twenty-two percent of the participants in the first group, which read about regulation, said they believed it. In the second group, which read about a free-market climate change solution, 55 percent said they believed the statement. That’s a big difference!
And for the politically left-leaning, don’t let yourselves feel smug about Republicans’ selective denial of science: Campbell’s team also led another experiment that found the same effect in a group of self-identified Democrats. They were much more likely to downplay statistics on the frequency of violent home break-ins if they’d read about looser gun-control laws as a possible solution, compared to participants who had read that more restrictive gun laws might help.
Campbell and his colleagues call this phenomenon “solution aversion,” and at frank2016, he called it just one of many factors that impact people’s belief – or denial – in scientifically sound facts.
His recommendation to social change communicators? Don’t downplay tough issues; instead, be mindful of their implications. When working to raise awareness of a problem, try emphasizing solutions that your target audience might support – and you might be surprised at how persuasive you can be.
