Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication

Rabinovich, Anna; Morton, Thomas A.

doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2012.01771.x

Cited by 87 publications

(95 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Psychology undergraduates at least can judge both science and nonscience arguments by the amount and reliability of their evidence (9). Different lay people hold different models of science, some more classical (seeking a single, true answer) versus others more Kuhnian (acknowledging multiple answers to negotiate and debate, accepting scientific uncertainty) (10). Hence, potential divides between scientists and the public are not merely about sheer knowledge in any simple way.…”

Section: Public Beliefs and Affectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Fiske

Dupree

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

358

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another’s apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, “envied” professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although distrust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is distrusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences’ respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists’ trustworthy intentions.

show abstract

Section: Public Beliefs and Affectmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Fiske

Dupree

2014

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

358

291

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Does more knowledge inevitability reduce uncertainty and how people approach scientific research and its applications? Rabinovich and Morton (2012) propose that beliefs about the scientific process and levels of uncertainty communicated about scientific phenomenon can affect willingness to act on messages that call for adapting to climate change. They contrast two models of the nature of science that underlie the meanings assigned to uncertainty.…”

Section: Abstract: Adaptive Management-beliefs-climate Change-informmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People and the institutions they are associated with have different levels of tolerance for uncertainty and different strategies for reducing it when there seems to be a benefit in doing so. In general, people typically look for certainty and avoid uncertainty when deciding how to act in their everyday lives (Slovic 2009;Rabinovich and Morton 2012).A claim of scientific uncertainty is often interpreted by the nonscientific public as a sign of incompetence or poor understanding about a topic (Frewer et al 2003) rather than an admission of incomplete information. There is evidence that people tend to discount information labeled "uncertain" in the process of decision making, and are less likely to use information that conveys uncertainty (Rabinovich and Morton 2012).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Upper Midwest farmer perceptions: Too much uncertainty about impacts of climate change to justify changing current agricultural practices

Morton

Roesch‐McNally²,

Wilke³

2017

Journal of Soil and Water Conservation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:To be uncertain is to be unsure or have doubt. Results from a random sample survey show the majority (89.5%) of farmers in the Upper Midwest perceived there was too much uncertainty about the impacts of climate to justify changing their agricultural practices and strategies, despite scientific evidence regarding the causes and potential consequences of climate change. This study uses random sample survey data (n = 4,778) and in-depth interviews (n = 159) of Upper Midwest farmers to better understand factors that underlie their uncertainty and reluctance to take adaptive action. Results reveal that farmers' uncertainty about projected climate change impacts on their production systems is influenced by their beliefs about climate change, experiences with drought, concern about heat stress on crops, and agricultural information networks. Findings suggest a combination of insufficient information and normative influences on climate beliefs are influencing farmer uncertainty. In cases where uncertainty is caused by insufficient information, improved farmer access to and use of historical crop and local climate records, as well as decision support tools that simulate different climate scenarios and their impacts on production, could improve estimates of future risks. However, more information may be insufficient to address claims of uncertainty when differing political and cultural norms contest the parameters of climate change. This suggests that scientific knowledge must be linked to social values and beliefs and trusted agricultural networks for widespread adaptive management to a changing climate to occur. Key words: adaptive management-beliefs-climate change-information sourcesuncertainty-Upper Midwest farmersScientific messages about climate change document high levels of certainty about current and projected patterns of more variable and extreme weather in the United States, including increased average precipitation, increased heavy downpours, on-average more frequent heat waves, more regional flooding and droughts, and a longer frost-free crop season (Walsh et al. 2014). All of these trends have the potential to affect agricultural crop yields and soil and water resources. There is growing pressure on farmers to proactively make climate adaptation-related decisions to reduce vulnerability to their production systems, to better manage and avoid degradation of soil and water resources, and to assure ecosystem resilience under increasingly variable climate conditions (Melillo et al. 2012; Walthall et al. 2012; Lourenco et al. 2015). Yet, a large number of farmers in the Upper Midwest perceive there is too much uncertainty about the impacts of climate change to justify changing their agricultural practices (figure 1) (Loy et al. 2013). Further, almost 60% of them believe there is not enough evidence climate change is happening or they believe it is primarily a natural cycle that they have little control over (Arbuckle et al. 2013c).The problem of climate change seems to be understood differently by mid...

show abstract

“…Changes in climate are generally slow and modifications of average climate conditions gradually occur over long time periods (Weber 2010), which has influenced public receptiveness on addressing the issue of climate change (Leiswerowitz et al 2012). It has been documented that individual beliefs in scientific consensus (Lewandowsky et al 2012), risk perceptions and beliefs (Leiserowitz 2006), and trust in information source (Rabinovich and Morton 2012;Maibach et al 2011;Weber 2010) influence an individuals' willingness to become receptive to climate science information and utilize it in their decision making process. This is also evident in the agricultural sector, where it has been found that trust in information sources influences beliefs, and subsequently behaviors, about climate change (Arbuckle et al 2013a).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A number of researchers find that the publics' perception of scientific consensus is a factor in the acceptance of science (Kahan et al 2011b;Lewandowsky et al 2012). These perceptions can affect whether societal action occurs to address climate-related issues and implement climate policy (Ding et al 2011;Kahan et al 2012;Rabinovich and Morton 2012). Recent public engagement with science and technology research (e.g.…”

Section: Conveying Scientific Information and Counsel To Decision Makersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climatologists’ patterns of conveying climate science to the agricultural community

Wilke

Morton

2014

Agric Hum Values

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climatologists have a unique role in providing various stakeholders and public data users with weather and climate information. In the north central region (NCR) of the United States, farmers, the agricultural sector, and policy makers are important audiences for climate science. As local and global climate conditions continue to shift and affect agricultural productivity, it is useful to understand how climatologists view their role as scientists, and how this influences their communication of climate science to agricultural stakeholders. In this study, data from interviews (N = 13) and surveys (N = 19) of state and extension climatologists in the NCR are analyzed to identify perceived roles and responsibilities as scientists and communicators. Pielke's (The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007) framework of the idealized roles of scientists and their communication patterns are used to develop a typology of climate science communication. Findings reveal that more than half of climatologists perceive their role to provide information as pure scientists, while some engage in an arbiter role when requested. Fewer climatologists view their role as not only producing new knowledge, but also relating it to society and providing an expanded variety of alternative applications. Climatologists who perceive their role as simply providing information and letting data users interpret its application are missing an opportunity to reduce the gap between what scientists know and farmers believe. This suggests that if climatologists would frame their climate science message in terms of agricultural impacts, hazard mitigation and risk management alternatives they could help the agricultural sector adapt to and mitigate environmental risks from a changing climate.

show abstract

Unquestioned Answers or Unanswered Questions: Beliefs About Science Guide Responses to Uncertainty in Climate Change Risk Communication

Cited by 87 publications

References 39 publications

Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics

Upper Midwest farmer perceptions: Too much uncertainty about impacts of climate change to justify changing current agricultural practices

Climatologists’ patterns of conveying climate science to the agricultural community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About