Originally published by Douglas Keene.
The authors use a basic conclusion from multiple articles in the peer-reviewed literature on climate change: at least 97% of scientists have concluded climate change is happening. They report that “most Americans” have no idea the consensus is so high (and cite the example of only 1 in 10 Americans (1.2%) correctly estimating consensus at 90% or higher. The authors say “manufacturers of doubt” publicly dispute the existence of scientific consensus and their voices are heard over the quiet consensus of experts in the area.
So, the authors of today’s featured article wanted to see if there were ways to change minds on the issue of climate change. The experiment involved 1,104 participants (52% female; ranging in age from 18 to 75 with a modal range of 35-44 years of age; 36% had a bachelor’s degree or higher; and 38% were Democrats by self-report with no data given for the percentage of either Republicans or Independents). Prior to any intervention, participants responded to questions about their individual beliefs on the scientific consensus on climate change, what their own personal beliefs were on climate change, whether they believed humans caused climate change, whether they were worried about climate change, and if they supported public action on climate change.
Essentially, the researchers wanted to test the efficacy of different ways to communicate the scientific-consensus-message (e.g., descriptive text, a pie chart, metaphors, et cetera). That is, which method of communication would be the most persuasive? In total, 11 different treatment conditions were administered and ultimately, the researchers found that simple text and a pie chart were the most effective means of persuasion about climate change consensus. (If you want to read more about the specific treatment conditions, go to the article itself and look at the Supplemental Information link for a description of the conditions used.)
It’s a really intriguing finding with provocative implications. Here’s an enticing paragraph explaining the results in plain language from a recent article in Scientific American by the primary author:
What’s even more interesting is that we found the same effect for two differentially motivated audiences: Democrats and Republicans. In fact, the change was significantly more pronounced among Republican respondents, who normally tend to be the most skeptical about the reality of human-caused climate change. These findings are quite remarkable, if not surprising, given that we exposed participants only once, to a single and simple message.
The information on the actual level of scientific consensus was persuasive to skeptics of climate change—even across political party lines (although in the article itself, the authors say “compared to Democrats, Republican subjects responded particularly well to the scientific consensus message”). The authors report results that are quite astounding given the hot button nature of climate change.
…all stated hypotheses were confirmed: increasing public perceptions of the scientific consensus causes a significant increase in the belief that climate change is (a) happening, (b) human-caused and (c) a worrisome problem. In turn, changes in those key beliefs lead to increased support for public action.
It’s akin to a domino effect—give a (gateway belief) fact like scientific consensus and the other associated beliefs topple over in the face of data to the contrary. The researchers say that offering information is indeed a powerful tool toward decreasing false beliefs. So what about all the times when you offer facts and jurors disregard them? The researchers address that by saying they just do not think the idea that people hear things based on their own pre-existing beliefs and discard information that doesn’t fit their own schemas (aka motivated reasoning) is accurate and to support their argument, they point back to their own study.
…this study only used a single treatment, yet found that even a single, simple description of the scientific consensus significantly shifted public perceptions of the consensus and subsequent climate change beliefs and desire for action.
What is important, say the researchers, is that there is organized opposition to climate change and the opposition “strategically sows seeds of doubt”. They believe that repeated exposure to simple messages correctly stating the consensus on climate change is the key to people realizing the importance of the issue and thus supporting action to change policy on climate change. In the Scientific American article, the authors give a plain language example of how information changes minds [this would be a plain text example they talk about as being persuasive]:
Imagine reading a road sign that informs you that 97% of engineers have concluded that the bridge in front of you is unsafe to cross. You would likely base your decision to cross or avoid that bridge on the expert consensus, irrespective of your personal convictions. Few people would get out of their car and spend the rest of the afternoon personally assessing the structural condition of the bridge (even if you were an expert). Similarly, not everyone can afford the luxury of carving out a decade or so to study geophysics and learn how to interpret complex climatological data. Thus, it makes perfect sense for people to use expert consensus as a decision-heuristic to guide their beliefs and behavior. Society has evolved to a point where we routinely defer to others for advice—from our family doctors to car mechanics; we rely on experts to keep our lives safe and productive.
From a litigation advocacy perspective, this is a powerful message. While we don’t think you can expect to simply offer a message like these researchers did and expect jurors to believe you—what it does say is that if you can back up your assertion with facts, people will be persuaded despite pre-existing beliefs and despite their political affiliation. When jurors reject expert testimony, it is often because they figure that lawyers can hire someone to say almost anything. But if (for example) the expert explains his or her position, and explains that it is consistent with the findings of 145 peer-reviewed studies in contrast to 4 that didn’t agree, they begin to think they might be able to trust you. Especially if the expert can explain why the 4 didn’t agree.
We have had countless mock jurors over the years throw up their hands in frustration and say “Each side has their expert saying what they want. But what I want is to know what is real. How am I supposed to know whom to believe?” And in the face of the deadlock, they opt for whatever belief fits their overall world view, instead of the science. In this as in many other circumstances, the challenge is to reassure jurors that they are being smart and safe to trust what you (and your expert) say. By introducing consensus, the playing field grows from the courtroom to the scientific universe. And that feels more trustworthy.
Let’s repeat that line just to remind us all of the power of scientific consensus (combined with verbal visual imagery):
“Imagine reading a road sign that informs you that 97% of engineers have concluded the bridge in front of you is unsafe to cross.”
van der Linden SL, Leiserowitz AA, Feinberg GD, & Maibach EW (2015). The scientific consensus on climate change as a gateway belief: experimental evidence. PloS one, 10 (2) PMID: 25714347
Curated by Texas Bar Today. Follow us on Twitter @texasbartoday.
from Texas Bar Today http://ift.tt/1IGDa7P
via Abogado Aly Website
No comments:
Post a Comment