Experts
Matthew Nisbet
Professor of Communications, American University
Recent Activity
Study: Do the Terms "Global Warming" versus "Climate Change" Matter to Public Perceptions?
In the latest issue of the journal Public Understanding of Science, Lorraine Whitmarsh from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the UK, publishes a study that finds that the terms "climate change" versus "global warming" matter to public perceptions. In a mail survey of a representative sample of 590 residents from the Portsmouth, UK region, Whitmarsh gave half the participants a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "climate change" and the other half of the sample a questionnaire asking them to evaluate the risks and impacts of "global warming." From the article, here's a summary of the findings: The term "global warming" is more often associated with: ● heat-related impacts--in particular, temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers; ● human causes--including pollution, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, CFCs, fossil fuel consumption, cars/traffic fumes, and overuse or misuse of earth's resources; ● ozone depletion and increased ultraviolet (UV) light penetration of the atmosphere; ● trapping of heat or gases within the atmosphere and the "greenhouse effect." The term "climate change" is more readily associated with: ● a range of impacts on climate and the weather, including hotter summers, wetter winters, increased rainfall and drought, and impacts on agriculture/food supply; ● impacts that have already been observed; ● natural causes. Later in their conclusion, they provide this additional summary of their findings: "Global warming" is more often believed to have human causes and tends to be associated with ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect and heat-related impacts, such as temperature increase and melting icebergs and glaciers. The term "climate change" is more readily associated with natural causes and a range of impacts. Furthermore, the term "global warming" evokes significantly more concern, and is rated as "very important" by more respondents, than the term "climate change." Finally, more people consider individual or public action to be an effective means of tackling "global warming than do so for "climate change"; while a higher proportion believe planting trees could mitigate "climate change" than it could mitigate "global warming." The study provide evidence for what many people have surmised: That labels do matter to the climate change debate. The local population of Portsmouth sampled in this study is obviously not representative of the national audiences in the UK and the US, but my strong hypothesis would be that a similarly designed study in the US is likely to turn up similar key perceptua differences. Indeed, as part of his audience research earlier this decade, conservative strategist Frank Luntz recommended that switching terms from "global warming" to "climate change" would be an effective way for climate skeptics to downplay the urgency of the issue. The thorny question is what to do about this perceptual reality? For one, the more scientifically accurate term is climate change, so from an ethical standpoint, it would be wise for science institutions and scientists to stick with this label, despite the less impactful nature of the phrase. On the other hand, if you are a political strategist working to mobilize concern on climate change, switching to the phrase "global warming" might be to your advantage. Still, we are likely to be stuck with each of these interchangeable and imperfect labels moving forward. Coming up with a third phrase such as the "climate crisis" or " dangerous climate disruption" is unlikely to earn widespread adoption and may strike key audiences as an attempt at political marketing, undercutting credibility and public trust. Moreover, we have little to no data on the effectiveness of these alternative terms. Indeed, a term such as the "climate crisis," or even the emphasis on "dangerous disruption" might spark immediate resistance among some key swing audience segments, who may dismiss the terms as alarmist. Read the comments on this post...
June 30, 2009, 1:11 PM
Nature on the Future of Science Journalism
Timed with the World Federation of Science Journalists meeting in London, Nature magazine has put together a selection of recent articles focusing on journalism and science communication. The selection includes our recent article at Nature Biotechnology (PDF, news release). Read the comments on this post...
June 29, 2009, 3:19 PM
Silence is the Enemy: Sexually Violent Video Games
[Contributed by guest blogger, Katherine Broendel] The last time I posted, I wrote about the effects pornography and violent pornography may have on viewers' perspectives of women and sexual violence. Rather than stating an opinion, I provided a brief review of some of the studies I read as preliminary research for my thesis. On a related note, I want to explore the topic of sexually violent video games, or, rape simulation video games. A couple weeks ago, an AAUW colleague and fellow AU grad student, Mandy Toomey, wrote an interesting blog post about rape simulation video games. I have not read much about entertainment media's effects - if any - on women and sexual violence, but it seems like it would be a fascinating and relevant study. I'd like to link to her post here and open the comments for thoughtful and informed opinions because I'm curious to see what people know and think about the issue. If anyone knows of any good studies or research where we could all read more about sexually violent depictions in video games, music, etc., please feel free to share your citations. As video games remain incredibly popular, I do think it's important to understand what effects they may or may not have on participating audiences. Read the comments on this post...
June 29, 2009, 1:03 AM
Tonight @ UW-Madison: What's Next for Science Communication?
I am in beautiful Madison, Wisconsin today to give this lecture at 7pm on campus. The talk is free and open to the public. Read the comments on this post...
June 25, 2009, 9:51 AM
Science: Not a Crisis in Journalism but an Opportunity
In the lead editorial at Science last week, Harvard University's Cristine Russell discusses the many emerging possibilities in science journalism. It's a mistake to frame current events as a "crisis," correctly explains Russell, but rather to look at trends as an opportunity to diversify, innovate, and experiment with new models and formats, expanding the network of science journalists into a truly global community, retraining journalists to produce content for new platforms and to cover related dimensions of policy and ethics, while broadening and diversifying audiences. For journalists from Boston to Beijing, the rapidly changing world of communication technology also offers myriad multimedia options for crossing borders by accessing the latest science, interviewing experts, mining research, and reaching the public in innovative ways. While these new tools--blogs, podcasts, Skype, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter--offer creative outlets, mindless chatter can gobble up precious time. Countless new Web sites provide a dizzying array of science information, misinformation, and commentary that can be hard to sort through. These sites also run the risk of preaching to the converted and subdividing the audience in ways that may narrow the science knowledge base and reinforce uninformed opinion. In the face of this changing media landscape, journalism and science organizations need to explore better ways to train reporters, scientists, and other communicators around the world in the substance and process of science writing. In doing so, it is crucial that the old-fashioned virtues of good journalism--accurate information, multiple sources, context over controversy, and editorial independence--not be lost in the enthusiasm for communicating content in novel ways. Read the comments on this post...
June 22, 2009, 10:10 AM
Professor Matthew Nisbet is a social scientist who studies strategic communication in policy-making and public affairs. His current work focuses on controversies surrounding science, the environment, and public health. In this research, Nisbet examines how journalists cover policy debates, how strategists try to mold public opinion, and how citizens make sense of complex and politically charged issues. He has analyzed a wide range of debates including those over stem cell research, global warming, intelligent design, food biotechnology, nanotechnology, and hurricanes.
Nisbet is the author of more than two dozen journal articles and book chapters. Over the past five years, these studies have been cited more than 400 times by other scholars. He has also written about the implications of this research at interdisciplinary and popular outlets such as Science, Environment, the Washington Post, The Scientist magazine, the Columbia Journalism Review, and Foreign Policy magazine.
Nisbet is a research fellow with the Center for Social Media and an affiliated researcher with the Center for Climate Change Communication at George Mason University. He also serves on the editorial boards for the International Journal of Press/Politics and for Science Communication. His research is funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and he has worked as a consultant to the National Academies, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, the Centers for Disease Control, the National Science Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Exploratorium science center and other leading organizations.
