Primer on The Psychology of Climate Change Communication

Columbia University's Center for Research on Environmental Decisions has released a primer on the "Psychology of Climate Change Communication," synthesizing much of the research of the Center over the past several years. Written by Debika Shome and Sabine Marx, the primer is available both in HTML (by chapter) and in PDF format.

Readers will find of special interest the second chapter on the relevance of framing to communication. As I have noted, there is no such thing as "unframed" information. Whether you are a scientist, a public information officer, or a journalist, the choice is not whether to frame or not to frame, but rather how to frame a complex and uncertain issue for the public and with what goals in mind.

Here's how the Columbia University researchers define the relevance of framing:

Framing is the setting of an issue within an appropriate context to achieve a desired interpretation or perspective. The intention is not to deceive or manipulate people, but to make credible climate science more accessible to the public. Indeed, since it is impossible not to frame an issue, climate change communicators need to ensure they consciously select a frame that will resonate with their audience.


On this topic, a recent book chapter I wrote outlining four key ethical guidelines when applying framing to science communication is now in print as part of an excellent edited volume titled "Communicating Biological Sciences: Ethical and Metaphorical Dimensions." I will have more on this chapter and volume later this week.

NASA astronomer Michelle Thaller on ​the multiple dimensions of space and human sexuality

Science and the squishiness of the human mind. The joys of wearing whatever the hell you want, and so much more.

Flickr / 13winds
Think Again Podcasts
  • Why can't we have a human-sized cat tree?
  • What would happen if you got a spoonful of a neutron star?
  • Why do we insist on dividing our wonderfully complex selves into boring little boxes
Keep reading Show less

How to split the USA into two countries: Red and Blue

Progressive America would be half as big, but twice as populated as its conservative twin.

Image: Dicken Schrader
Strange Maps
  • America's two political tribes have consolidated into 'red' and 'blue' nations, with seemingly irreconcilable differences.
  • Perhaps the best way to stop the infighting is to go for a divorce and give the two nations a country each
  • Based on the UN's partition plan for Israel/Palestine, this proposal provides territorial contiguity and sea access to both 'red' and 'blue' America
Keep reading Show less

Ideology drives us apart. Neuroscience can bring us back together.

A guide to making difficult conversations possible—and peaceful—in an increasingly polarized nation.

Sponsored
  • How can we reach out to people on the other side of the divide? Get to know the other person as a human being before you get to know them as a set of tribal political beliefs, says Sarah Ruger. Don't launch straight into the difficult topics—connect on a more basic level first.
  • To bond, use icebreakers backed by neuroscience and psychology: Share a meal, watch some comedy, see awe-inspiring art, go on a tough hike together—sharing tribulation helps break down some of the mental barriers we have between us. Then, get down to talking, putting your humanity before your ideology.
  • The Charles Koch Foundation is committed to understanding what drives intolerance and the best ways to cure it. The foundation supports interdisciplinary research to overcome intolerance, new models for peaceful interactions, and experiments that can heal fractured communities. For more information, visit charleskochfoundation.org/courageous-collaborations.