The science and art of framing issues

Using Psychology to Effect Social Change:

The science and art of framing issues

American Psychological Association #PILC15 November 16, 2015

The trouble with standard stories

Standard stories are those in which all that happens is the result of the characters' actions. This does not align

well with social life - where causal forces tend to be incremental, indirect, interactive, unintended, collective

and environmentally mediated!

Tilly, Charles (2002)."Stories, Identities and Political Change"

Case Study: Designated Driver Was it effective?

Research says:

$1.3 billion in donated media since 1983

100%

Recalled hearing/seeing a PSA

84%

80%

Stopped a friend from driving drunk

Stopped themselves from driving drunk

25%

0%

But...

What percent of all traffic 100%

fatalities 75%

are caused by alcohol-

impaired drivers?

50%

25%

31%

0% (2013)

Today? 1 alcoholimpaired fatality every 52

These drivers were 8x more likely to have a prior OUI

minutes

data from:

What reduces alcohol-impaired driving?

X DD Programs

Ignition interlocks Roadside sobriety checkpoints Enforcement of MLDA Enforcement of zero tolerance laws for

detectable BAC for drivers under 21

Ditter S, Elder RW, Shults RA, Sleet DA, Compton R, Nichols JL, Task Force on Community Preventive

Services. Effectiveness of designated driver programs for reducing alcohol?impaired driving: a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2005;28(5S):280?7.

and now?

? These strategies often obscure the public and

structural dimensions of social problems, and so fail to:

? improve understanding of the causes,

consequences and solutions to social problems

? build support for public solutions

Why is that?

product marketing

specific

behavior change

And...the influence of social psychology research on persuasion

i.e., Fishbein & Ajzen

specific behavior change (e.g., health and nutrition)

Social change

National

} Regional State Solutions

Local Individual

So what did I learn? We need to reconsider traditional

communication approaches to social problems

Communicating for social change

Typical tools:

More effective tools:

compelling ideas

compelling design

principles of social

cognition

evidence base from science communication

research

well-framed, intentional communication

How does thinking work?

Our thinking is guided by cognitive frameworks called

sa.scshuemmpatio- npsre, cboenliceefsiv-etdhaidteas,

help us organize information.

The role of cultural cognition

We have "cultural schema" - culturally mediated patterns of reasoning - about poverty, welfare, gender, government, taxes, health, etc.

see D'Andrade, Roy G. (1989). Cultural Cognition. In M.I. Posner (ed.) Foundations of Cognitive Science, pp. 795-830. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press

The cultural narratives that tend to hijack frames about social problems

America is a land of opportunity, and individual responsibility is all that is

needed to succeed There are inequalities because of

choices, habits and lifestyles Government is the problem, not a

problem solver

And the news media reinforce certain narratives...at the expense of others

One more problem: Most people aren't thinking about social issues. They're thinking about...

But you're psychologists. You know it's even more complicated than that!

Reminder 1: We're "cognitive misers," and use schemas, heuristics, etc. as a RULE

"Cognitive Misers" coined by Fiske and Taylor (1984)

Reminder 2: We're motivated reasoners

"identity protective cognition"

What about Dual Processing Theory?

System 1 = "fast" unconscious, intuitive, associative System 2 - "slow" conscious, effortful, deliberative

Is science communication just about improving science comprehension?

Dan Kahan's work at:

"How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human

1.00

health, safety, or prosperity?"

0.75

Science Com1p.0re0hension Deficit Theory would predict?

Greater Ris1k.010.00

0.50

0.705.75

0.75

1.00

0.50

0.75

perceived risk (z-score)

0.25

0.500.50 0.205.25

0.50

0.25

0.25

0.00 -0.25

0.000.00 -0.2-05.25 -0.5-00.50

0.00 actual variance 0.00

-0.25

-0.25

-0.50

low vs. high sci low vs. high sci

-0.50

-0.7-05.75

Lesser Ri-s1k.0-10.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.75

3lo0wb -0.75 point 1Sci-e1nc.e0l0iteracy

p3ohi0nigtth2

-1.00

30lobw

30hitgh

point 1

point 2

Numeracy

-1.00

point 1

U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 ("no risk at all") to 10

("extrempeoriisnk"t),1M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 lepveol oinf cton2fidence.

point 2

low vs. high sci

low vs. high sci

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download