P. Sol Hart

Boomerang Effects in Science Communication How Motivated Reasoning and Identity Cues Amplify Opinion Polarization About Climate Mitigation Policies

The deficit-model of science communication assumes increased communication about science issues will move public opinion toward the scientific consensus. However, in the case of climate change, public polarization about the issue has increased in recent years, not diminished. In this study, we draw from theories of motivated reasoning, social identity, and persuasion to examine how science-based messages may increase public polarization on controversial science issues such as climate change. Exposing 240 adults to simulated news stories about possible climate change health impacts on different groups, we found the influence of identification with potential victims was contingent on participants’ political partisanship. This partisanship increased the degree of political polarization on support for climate mitigation policies and resulted in a boomerang effect among Republican participants. Implications for understanding the role of motivated reasoning within the context of science communication are discussed.

Informing Patients: The Influence of Numeracy, Framing, and Format of Side Effect Information on Risk Perceptions

Background. Given the importance of effective patient communication, findings about influences on risk perception in nonmedical domains need replication in medical domains. Objective. To examine whether numeracy influences risk perceptions when different information frames and number formats are used to present medication risks. Methods. The authors manipulated the frame and number format of risk information in a 3 (frame: positive, negative, combined) × 2 (number format: frequency, percentage) design. Participants from an Internet sample (N = 298), randomly assigned to condition, responded to a single, hypothetical scenario. The main effects and interactions of numeracy, framing, and number format on risk perception were measured. Results. Participants given the positive frame perceived the medication as less risky than those given the negative frame. Mean risk perceptions for the combined frame fell between the positive and negative frames. Numeracy did not moderate these framing effects. Risk perceptions also varied by number format and numeracy, with less-numerate participants given risk information in a percentage format perceiving the medication as less risky than when given risk information in a frequency format; highly numerate participants perceived similar risks in both formats. The generalizability of the findings is limited due to the use of non-patients, presented a hypothetical scenario. Given the design, one cannot know whether observed differences would translate into clinically significant differences in patient behaviors. Conclusions. Frequency formats appear to increase risk perceptions over percentage formats for less-numerate respondents. Health communicators need to be aware that different formats generate different risk perceptions among patients varying in numeracy.

Threat Without Efficacy? Climate Change on U.S. Network News

This study investigates how U.S. network television news stories have conveyed threat and efficacy information about climate change, both directly and indirectly, through the discussion and framing of climate change impacts and actions. Results show that while impacts and actions are discussed independently in a majority of broadcasts, they are rarely discussed in the same broadcast. Moreover, while news coverage frequently conveys the threat of climate change, it provides an inconsistent efficacy message, often including both positive and negative efficacy cues. Finally, impacts are framed primarily in terms of environmental consequences, whereas actions are framed in terms of political conflict.

Numbers matter to informed patient choices: a randomized design across age and numeracy levels.

Background. How drug adverse events (AEs) are communicated in the United States may mislead consumers and result in low adherence. Requiring written information to include numeric AE-likelihood information might lessen these effects, but providing numbers may disadvantage less skilled populations. The objective was to determine risk comprehension and willingness to use a medication when presented with numeric or nonnumeric AE-likelihood information across age, numeracy, and cholesterol-lowering drug-use groups. Methods. In a cross-sectional Internet survey (N = 905; American Life Panel, 15 May 2008 to 18 June 2008), respondents were presented with a hypothetical prescription medication for high cholesterol. AE likelihoods were described using 1 of 6 formats (nonnumeric: consumer medication information (CMI)–like list, risk labels; numeric: percentage, frequency, risk labels + percentage, risk labels + frequency). Main outcome measures were risk comprehension (recoded to indicate presence/absence of risk overestimation and underestimation), willingness to use the medication (7-point scale; not likely = 0, very likely = 6), and main reason for willingness (chosen from 8 predefined reasons). Results. Individuals given nonnumeric information were more likely to overestimate risk, were less willing to take the medication, and gave different reasons than those provided numeric information across numeracy and age groups (e.g., among the less numerate, 69% and 18% overestimated risks in nonnumeric and numeric formats, respectively; among the more numerate, these same proportions were 66% and 6%). Less numerate middle-aged and older adults, however, showed less influence of numeric format on willingness to take the medication. It is unclear whether differences are clinically meaningful, although some differences are large. Conclusions. Providing numeric AE-likelihood information (compared with nonnumeric) is likely to increase risk comprehension across numeracy and age levels. Its effects on uptake and adherence of prescribed drugs should be similar across the population, except perhaps in older, less numerate individuals.

Using Political Efficacy Messages to Increase Climate Activism: The Mediating Role of Emotions

Using an online experiment with a national sample, this study tests the effects of political efficacy messages on two types of climate-related political participation via the discrete emotions of hope, fear, and anger and compares these effects across ideological groups. Relative to a message that discusses only negative climate impacts, messages that emphasize the internal, external, or response efficacy of political actions to address climate change are found to influence hope and fear but not anger, and these effects vary by political ideology. Furthermore, exposure to efficacy information indirectly increases participation via hope—even, in some cases, among conservatives.

The role of numeracy in moderating the influence of statistics in climate change messages.

In recent years, researchers have examined how numerical ability may moderate an individual’s response to different types of numeric information, but there is scant research examining how numerical ability may moderate responses to non-numeric vs. numeric information. The present study uses an experiment (complete data for 120 participants) to examine a moderated-mediation model that tests how numeracy may moderate the impact of numeric and non-numeric descriptions of climate change risks on worry and concern for victims, which may, in turn, impact willingness to donate to relevant organizations. The inclusion of numeric instead of non-numeric descriptors significantly increased both concern for victims and willingness to donate for low numerate individuals while there was no difference for highly numerate individuals.

Polarizing news? Representations of threat and efficacy in leading US newspapers’ coverage of climate change:

This study examines non-editorial news coverage in leading US newspapers as a source of ideological differences on climate change. A quantitative content analysis compared how the threat of climate change and efficacy for actions to address it were represented in climate change coverage across The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, and USA Today between 2006 and 2011. Results show that The Wall Street Journal was least likely to discuss the impacts of and threat posed by climate change and most likely to include negative efficacy information and use conflict and negative economic framing when discussing actions to address climate change. The inclusion of positive efficacy information was similar across newspapers. Also, across all newspapers, climate impacts and actions to address climate change were more likely to be discussed separately than together in the same article. Implications for public engagement and ideological polarization are discussed.

Do Hostile Media Perceptions Lead to Action? The Role of Hostile Media Perceptions, Political Efficacy, and Ideology in Predicting Climate Change Activism:

This study joins a growing body of research that demonstrates the behavioral consequences of hostile media perceptions. Using survey data from a nationally representative U.S. sample, this study tests a moderated-mediation model examining the direct and indirect effects of hostile media perceptions on climate change activism. The model includes external political efficacy as a mediator and political ideology and internal political efficacy as moderators. The results show that hostile media perceptions have a direct association with climate activism that is conditioned by political ideology: Among liberals, hostile media perceptions promote activism, whereas among conservatives, they decrease activism. Hostile media perceptions also have a negative, indirect relationship with activism that is mediated through external political efficacy; however, this relationship is conditioned by both ideology and internal political efficacy. Specifically, the indirect effect manifests exclusively among conservatives and moderates who have low internal efficacy. Theoretical, normative, and practical implications are discussed.

The Impact of Climate Change–Related Imagery and Text on Public Opinion and Behavior Change:

This experimental study investigates how imagery and text in news coverage of climate change affect perceptions of issue importance, efficacy, and intentions to conserve energy and engage in climate change-related political behavior. The results reveal that images of solar panels and texts that discuss actions to address climate change increase individuals’ perceptions of efficacy. Perceived efficacy and issue importance each have a positive association with behavior change. In contrast to previous studies, the present investigation finds no evidence that exposure to images of either climate impacts or climate pollution negatively influence perceived efficacy or positively influence perceived issue importance.

Extending the Impacts of Hostile Media Perceptions Influences on Discussion and Opinion Polarization in the Context of Climate Change

Researchers recently have begun to examine how hostile media perceptions may promote discursive activities aimed at correcting the media’s perceived negative influence. We use nationally representative survey data to test a moderated-mediation model that finds that hostile media perceptions significantly affect support for climate mitigation policies through the mediator of discussion and that the link between discussion and policy support is moderated in a three-way interaction with social network heterogeneity and political ideology. Discussion in homogeneous social networks increases opinion polarization between liberals and conservatives by intensifying conservatives’ opinions, whereas discussion in heterogeneous social networks decreases polarization by moderating liberals’ opinions.