16 pages., via online journal., The 2018 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warns that Earth’s temperatures may soon reach a tipping point that threatens humanity’s future. Scientists from many disciplines agree that anthropogenic climate change is a serious problem yet many Americans remain skeptical of the existence, causes, and/or severity of climate change. In this article, we review recent research on climate change communication focusing on audience variables and messaging strategies with the goal of providing communication practitioners research-based recommendations for climate change message design. Factors that influence audience acceptance and understanding of climate science include: demographic variables (such as political party affiliation, religious orientation, and geographic location), as well as brief sections on misinformation, and beliefs in pseudoscience. Keys to effectively construct climate messaging are discussed including: framing strategies; reducing psychological distance; emotional appeals; efficacy cues; weight-of-evidence/ weight of expert reporting; inoculation/correcting misinformation; and separating science from conspiracy theories. Evidence-based strategies are critical in giving science communicators the tools they need to bridge the gap between the scientific community and the at-risk public.
24 pages, Agricultural communications scholars do not use a national research agenda to guide their research, which could be limiting the impact and rigor of the discipline. In this commentary, we argue that agricultural communications scholars should adopt the science communication research agenda published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in 2017 because the goals of science communication, outlined in the agenda, are relevant to agriculture. Members of the committee who developed the agenda study science communication in contexts of food, agriculture, life sciences, the environment, political science, health, nutrition, and psychology, among others. They developed the agenda with the intent for it to inform and guide research in all science communication sub-disciplines or areas involving contentious public issues. We provide examples of studies that have used the agenda to inform research in agricultural and natural resources communications. We also explain how research priorities outlined in the science communication research agenda align with agricultural communications scholarship. Recognizing there are challenges unique to agriculture, we recommend agricultural communications scholars use the science communication research agenda as a research guide and adapt the relevant research recommendations for agricultural communications.
15 pages., via online journal., This paper presents selected highlights from the ‘Engaging with society’ session of EFSA's third Scientific Conference ‘Science, Food and Society’ (Parma, Italy, 18–21 September 2018). The social dimension for scientific advisory bodies largely concerns science communication and public engagement. The political, economic and technological transformation of contemporary societies is challenging conventional structures and approaches in these areas. The disintermediation of communication and the proliferation of misinformation, it is argued, herald the onset of the post‐truth society. A better understanding of the way individuals consume information today has led to the development of tools to guide mediators such as journalists and communication specialists in countering these trends. Public engagement can reinforce confidence in regulatory bodies and potentially contribute to the quality of the scientific process. Scientific advisory bodies in Europe have created strategies and mechanisms to engage the public that are designed to increase transparency and representativeness. To be effective, several engagement mechanisms are needed, although factors such as resource constraints, institutional culture and public/stakeholder attitudes may limit their development. In conclusion, a more vigorous role for social research is needed to place scientific risk assessment within broader socio‐economic and political contexts. Social science expertise can help to define more impactful public information strategies and to explore the potential opportunities that engaged stakeholders and citizens can make to sustain and strengthen regulatory science.
15 pages., via online journal., Since the first Earth Day in the 1970s, corporate environmental performance has increased dramatically, and cases of greenwashing have increased sharply. The term greenwash refers to a variety of different misleading communications that aim to form overly positive beliefs among stakeholders about a company's environmental practices. The growing number of corporate social responsibility claims, whether founded or not, creates difficulties for stakeholders in distinguishing between truly positive business performance and companies that only appear to embrace a model of sustainable development. In this context, through the lens of legitimacy and signalling theory, we intend to understand and assess the different influences that various types of misleading communications about environmental issues have on stakeholders' perceptions of corporate environmental responsibility and greenwashing. Stakeholder responses to an environmental scandal will also be assessed. The hypotheses tested through a four‐for‐two design experiment reveal that different levels of greenwashing have a significantly different influence on stakeholders' perceptions of corporate environmental responsibility and stakeholders' reactions to environmental scandals.
Wallach, Lori (author), Maybardukl, Peter (author), Hansen-Kuhn, Karen (author), and Jackson, Janine (author)
Format:
Interview
Publication Date:
2016-07-30
Published:
USA: Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, New York City, New York
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 30 Document Number: D10567
Notes:
13 pages., via website, FAIR., CounterSpin interviews with Lori Wallach, Peter Maybarduk and Karen Hansen-Kuhn on trade pacts and corporate globalization
