When attempting to communicate effectively with the public about a science-related debate, which is more important, framing the message or conveying science-based facts about the topic?  A forthcoming study (Word) at the Journal of Communication by Northwestern University researchers James Druckman and Toby Bolsen sheds new light on this long standing question.

As I will be highlighting at this blog, previous research consistently finds that the public typically form opinions in the absence of factual information, instead relying on mental short-cuts based on personal experience, values, and the selective presentation—or “framing”--of an issue. 

Frames influence perceptions and decisions because they focus on just one dimension of a complex topic over another, in the process communicating why an issue matters, why it might be personally relevant, and why a related action might lead to specific benefits or risks. 

Understanding and applying research on framing is particularly relevant to engaging the public on emerging issues such as nanotechnology and genetic engineering, but it also applies to communicating about entrenched policy debates such as climate change.  For example, in a recent study I conducted with Ed Maibach and colleagues, we find that when climate change is re-framed as a health problem rather than an environmental one, this re-interpretation is evaluated favorably and positively by a broad cross-section of Americans.  A frame in essence switches the train of thought for an audience, leading to a different set of attributions and conclusions.

Framing is an unavoidable aspect of human communication.  There is no such thing as unframed information.  On science-related issues, this idea is difficult to grasp for some advocates and scientists who still view communication through the lens of what scholars call the “deficit model” which assumes that opinion formation is a direct consequence of knowledge (or alternatively ignorance).  If the public only better understood the facts of a scientific topic they would more likely view the issue as scientists do and controversy would go away.

There is no question that deliberate decisions to selectively frame an issue can be used to deceive, but they can also be used to more effectively explain and engage audiences, boosting interest, attention, and learning.  As an example, in a recently published book chapter, I discussed the audience research approach that the National Academies used in framing the structure of a report on the teaching of evolution in schools (PDF). 

A second example is our recent research on the potential to re-frame climate as a health problem.  Not only does this new focus likely increase personal significance and relevance among Americans but it also communicates about objectively real and scientifically well-documented health risks that the public should know about.   It also starts to promote greater attention to adaptation policies and strategies--such as evacuation procedures, water and agricultural sanitation policies, improved housing, cooling stations during heat waves, and new transportation infrastructures-- that are needed to protect people and communities and that also result in healthier and higher quality lives.

Frames vs. Facts on Nano and GMOs