Communication and Technology
Summary literature
Science communication reconsidered
Some knowledge about science, and especially its role in society, is fundamentally important for a
public that bears the risks and benefits of scientific and technological development. Yet the narrow
emphasis of the deficit approach (one-way communication) does not recognize that knowledge is
only one factor among many influences that are likely to guide how individuals reach judgments,
with ideology, social identity and trust often having stronger impacts. The deficit model also
overlooks the fact that, given the abundance of competing content choices, traditional science media
outlets reach only a relatively small audience of already knowledgeable science enthusiasts. In
addition, on certain topics, the public is likely to draw strongly upon the portrayals featured in
entertainment film and television, science fiction novels and other forms of popular culture.
Participatory model: two-way dialog with lay publics (polls, juries etc.).
The deficit model ignores three things about the public:
1. Individuals are cognitive misers (rely on mental shortcuts, values and emotions)
2. Individuals are drawn to news sources that confirm and reinforce their pre-existing beliefs
3. Opinion leaders have been successful in formulating messages about science in a manner
that connects.
Frames are interpretative packages and storylines that help communicate why an issue might be a
problem, who or what might be responsible and what should be done. Frames are used by lay publics
as interpretative schemas to make sense of and discuss an issue; by journalists to condense complex
events into interesting and appealing news reports; by policy-makers to define policy options and
reach decisions; and by scientists to communicate the relevance of their findings. In each of these
contexts, frames simplify complex issues by lending greater weight to certain considerations and
arguments over others. Framing is an unavoidable reality of the science communication process.
Instead of relying on personal experience or anecdotal observation, it is necessary to carry out
careful audience research to determine which frames work across intended audiences.
The media not only influence public perceptions but also shape and reflect the policy debate. In
regard to perceptions of coverage, contrary to conventional wisdom, research has consistently
shown that most scientists are satisfied with the media coverage of their own research and are more
likely to be critical of science coverage generally. Research similarly suggests that perceptions of bias
in the coverage of biotech vary depending on a stakeholder's connection and personal commitment
to the topic. Studies have shown that hype in the media is most likely to originate with researchers
using metaphors associated with breakthroughs when in reality their research is one more
incremental piece of a complex scientific endeavour. As one result of these factors, research has
shown that positive results are more likely to be published, whereas studies that refute previously
published research are less likely to gain attention.
A further source of hype may lie in errors of omission—what is left out of media narratives.
Details of methods and study design (especially for clinical trials), risks and timelines for the delivery
of benefits are also underreported. Risks are often underreported because of the difficulties of
conveying probabilistic information, which is inadequately understood by most journalists and by the
general public. However, it is not just probabilistic risks that are underplayed but also any broader
discussion of social and ethical risks of the research. Equally of concern is the lack of discussion about
, realistic timelines for the delivery of benefits arising from what, in most cases, is still early-stage
research.
This difference in perception, and the hype derived from errors of omission and framing, may already
be leading to individual and social harm.
Much of the information on the Internet comes from sources other than the mainstream media or
scientist bloggers, and much of this may be of dubious quality. Corporate information sources
generally are little more than direct-to-consumer advertising for products, services or both. Only
recently have corporations begun to take advantage of the social media properties of the web,
entering into a dialog with stakeholders and publics via specially created sites that feature blogs,
scientist profiles and discussion sections etc. These popular blog sites become echo chambers
reinforcing deficit-model assumptions about the public, singling out science literacy as the golden key
to winning public support and to eroding religious belief.
The psychology of attitudes, motivation and persuasion
In this chapter we define attitude as evaluation. The target or subject matter of an attitude can be
any entity, such as an object, a person, a group, or an abstract idea. Attitudes also vary in terms of
specificity versus generality. Measurement also has implications for distinctions among attitudes. The
development of attitude measurement techniques, for instance, has enabled researchers to measure
attitudes indirectly rather than relying exclusively on explicit ratings of liking or approval. These
indirect measures of attitudes, referred to as implicit, are intended to assess automatic evaluations
that are generally difficult to gauge using explicit self-reports.
Behaviour is typically defined as the overt acts of an individual and is generally assumed to partly
stem from attitudes. An intention is a willingness to perform a behaviour. Intentions often emerge
from broader goals—desirable end states—that can be achieved via multiple, sustained behaviours;
are not fully controllable results; and require external help or resources. Like attitudes, goals can be
specific or general. On the one hand, attitude-behaviour researchers have generally studied fairly
specific goals, such as the goal to quit smoking. A belief can be defined as a person’s subjective
probability of a relation between the object of the belief and some other object, value, concept, or
attribute and affects people’s understanding of themselves and their environments.
A popular understanding of the structure of affect and emotions incorporates the dimensions of
positive versus negative valence and high versus low arousal. People feel sad, angry, content, or
excited, and each state varies not only in negative or positive valence but also in associated arousal.
Arousal has proved to be difficult to describe but generally entails autonomic activation measurable
by changes in skin conductance, heart rate, or brain waves.
Model: On the valence axis, individuals may dislike or like a political candidate and may dislike or like
a particular taste. Furthermore, attitudes can be mapped onto the arousal dimension because they
vary in extremity, importance, confidence, or the degree to which they elicit strong emotional
responses, such as excitement.
Attitudes are based on affective, cognitive, and behavioural information. The affective component
consists of feelings and emotions related to an attitude object; the cognitive component is composed
of beliefs, thoughts, and attributes associated with an attitude object; and the behavioural
component comprises of past behaviours or experiences with an attitude object.
The knowledge function represents attitudes that organize information about the environment. The
utilitarian function reflects attitudes that summarize the rewards and punishments associated with
an attitude object. The ego-defensive function embodies attitudes that protect the self. Finally, the
value-expressive function represents attitudes that express an individual’s self-concept. Scientists
