For science communicators, the challenge is to focus on repeating the correct information, not the misinformation. Photo / davisuko / Unsplash
For science communicators, the challenge is to focus on repeating the correct information, not the misinformation. Photo / davisuko / Unsplash
Opinion: Confirmation bias is a big hurdle to overcome for myth-busting scientists, Dr Jacqueline Rowarth writes.
Communication is an art as well as a science.
Knowing about human psychology assists with ensuring the right messages are transferred to the audience.
More art and science are involved in knowing who your audience is, and ensuring the message is relevant and pitched from the right starting point in the right language.
Always the take-home message should be at the forefront and in the conclusion.
Scientists trying to bust myths, correct misunderstandings and counteract false truths have probably been helping with their spread by starting with "the hook" of misinformation.
The take-home message for all people trying to get facts into the collective understanding is to start with the facts. And end with the facts.
Time spent on why the misunderstanding has occurred should be minimised because it allows people who actually want to believe the myths believe them.
This tendency is called confirmation bias.
It has been the subject of research which helps explain "why" changing your mind because of new ideas takes mental energy. It is easier to stick with what you already believe.
Good scientists do not take the easy route. They have been educated to explore and challenge, to ask the difficult questions and try, by following a rigorous process, to uncover new understanding.
The rigorous process gives credibility. With new understanding and new technologies, the scientific process allows the creation of new information and hence new understanding.
Science is about the process of achieving new information, not the facts.
This sometimes means that the facts change because the scientific process has brought new information to light.
Covid-19 showed the process clearly. We were able to see the effects of the developing science with the changes in policy around vaccinations and masks.
Despite the evidence, some people continue to deny that either has made any difference.
People were sure that their immune system would cope, despite the personal stories of people suffering badly, gasping that they were wrong in not having been vaccinated.
Stories often have an impact, but confirmation bias is a big hurdle to overcome.
The way over the hurdle is to engage the opposition with enquiry:
"That's interesting – could you tell me why you think that?"
Listen to Jamie Mackay interview Dr Jacqueline Rowarth on The Country below:
And then move into the credibility of the source with more questions (not all at once, and always adjusted according to the context and answers):
"I haven't heard of that person/journal/outlet. What's the background? Was that personal experience or research? Have the results been published anywhere? How applicable are the results to our context?"
Helping with the context question is to ask about the starting point.
This is particularly important when people are reacting to a percentage increase – a doubling of a very small percentage might not be meaningful but can look dramatic.
Dr Jacqueline Rowarth. Photo / Supplied
Environmental writer Dave Hansford, author of Protecting Paradise, made this point when he wrote about increases in 1080 concentration in water after a 1080 drop – the effect on the water life was significant, but it was biologically meaningless against the variability in the abundance of water life in a very short distance or moment in time.
Also helping with stories about science and advances is to concentrate on the outcome.
The use of nitrogen fertiliser globally has enabled more people to have affordable food because it has improved food quantity, quality and accessibility.
Nitrate in drinking water does not cause colorectal cancer; it is absorbed and recirculated before it reaches the lower intestine.
Productivity in agriculture in New Zealand has increased year-on-year because technological advances have enabled the targeted application of agrichemicals (right place, right time, right amount and right form) resulting in increased yields per unit of input, including land and labour.
In each case above, the fact is presented with a "why".
If the audience is engaged with the communicator, questions might be asked about why there is counterinformation and confusion in the media.
Explanation can then follow, leading to improved understanding.
Most people in New Zealand do understand that there has been a shift in the type of information circulating and have more distrust of media (59 per cent distrust) than apparent in other countries (50 per cent).
Research suggests that the rigour of fact-checking has become considerably less important in writing and posting material than the effort put on creating (and recreating) headlines to attract attention.
Despite the knowledge, confirmation bias still provides an easy option for some people.
For science communicators, the challenge is to focus on repeating the correct information, not the misinformation.
The onus is on all of us, not just science communicators, to ensure that we fact check before we forward material to others.
Focussing on what has been produced by a credible process, ensuring contextual relevance, identifying the starting point with a figure rather than a percentage, and ensuring that the information hasn't been superseded with more recent research, is the path to a more enlightened future than that which has been enabled with social media and lax reporting.
- Dr Jacqueline Rowarth, Adjunct Professor Lincoln University, has a PhD in Soil Science (nutrient cycling) and is a Director of Ravensdown, DairyNZ and Deer Industry NZ. The analysis and conclusions above are her own. jsrowarth@gmail.com
