A persistent problem for science communicators is how best to discuss controversial science issues. Communication is made especially difficult due to biases that arise through selective exposure and selective perception - individuals tend to selectively view and interpret messages in ways that reinforce previously held values and beliefs. The result is that attempts to communicate about science issues often amplify political polarization, and fail to spur action to mitigate or adapt to the relevant risks. The case of atmospheric change has been particularly rife with communication problems. This research draws primarily from the extended parallel process model (EPPM), which emphasizes the role of efficacy in effective risk communication, and the literature on framing processes to investigate how the media has discussed controversal science issues and what kinds of narratives may be effective in overcoming selective perception and selective exposure. Through a media content analysis and a series of experiments the project: 1) identifies how print, television, and online news media have thematically framed the controversal science issues and discussed the efficacy of efforts to address the issue, 2) investigates how the EPPM may be applied to politically charged issues, with a focus on how political orientation may moderate the impacts of changes in descriptions of efficacy on individuals' perceptions of the issue, and 3) explores how changes in media climate change frames and descriptions of efficacy, respectively, may cause individuals with varying political orientations to pay selective attention to media stories.
Using atmospheric change as a case study, this project will expand our understanding of how the news media represent controversal science issues and test strategies for overcoming individual biases in the selection and processing of science messages. It will advance risk communication theory by increasing our knowledge of how to use the EPPM and framing theory to develop messages that resonate across broad audiences and, in so doing, will make novel connections across multiple disciplines. In addition to its theoretical contributions, this research will provide new methods that practitioners may use to create scientifically informed messages that more effectively communicate controversal science issues.
