Joanna K. Huxster

Public support for restoration in sensitive ecosystems like the Everglades depends in part on individual-level concern and perceptions of impact from environmental threats. This study examines how environmental knowledge and ideological and political factors (IPFs)– cultural worldview (CWV), political ideology, and voting behavior – influence Floridians’ concern for the Everglades and their perceptions of impact for six different threats to the Everglades. Two of these threats, sea level rise and changes in precipitation, relate directly to climate change and thus are more likely to evoke ideological or political responses from participants. Analysis of our sample of 1437 Floridians reveals that: (1) Of the IPFs, CWV had the largest influence on environmental concern and perceptions of impact, except for in the case of sea level rise, for which voting behavior superseded CWV, (2) environmental knowledge had a larger influence on perceptions of impact for environmental threats that are not ideologically entangled (e.g. water quality), (3) IPFs had a larger influence on perceptions of impact from threats that are ideologically entangled (i.e. sea level rise and changes in precipitation), and (4) those with Communitarian-Egalitarian worldviews held higher levels of concern and perceived greater risk impacts on all but one of the threats (invasive species), although some differences vary across the distribution of environmental knowledge. These findings improve our understanding of how environmental knowledge and IPFs shape public concern for and perceptions of threats to the Greater Everglades ecosystem. These insights can help in developing communication strategies that generate public support for restoration.

Despite decades of concerted efforts to communicate to the public on important scientific issues pertaining to the environment and public health, gaps between public acceptance and the scientific consensus on these issues remain stubborn. One strategy for dealing with this shortcoming has been to focus on the existence of scientific consensus on the relevant matters. Recent science communication research has added support to this general idea, though the interpretation of these studies and their generalizability remains a matter of contention. In this paper, we describe results of a qualitative interview study on different models of scientific consensus and the relationship between such models and trust of science, finding that familiarity with scientific consensus is rarer than might be expected. These results suggest that consensus messaging strategies may not be effective.

Significant gaps remain between public opinion and the scientific consensus on many issues. We present the results of three studies ( N = 722 in total) for the development and testing of a novel instrument to measure a largely unmeasured aspect of scientific literacy: the enterprise of science, particularly in the context of its social structures. We posit that this understanding of the scientific enterprise is an important source for the public’s trust in science. Our results indicate that the Social Enterprise of Science Index (SESI) is a reliable and valid instrument that correlates positively with trust in science ( r = .256, p < .001), and level of education ( r = .245, p < .001). We also develop and validate a six question short version of the SESI for ease of use in longer surveys.

This study examines to what extent study design decisions influence the perceived efficacy of consensus messaging, using medicinal cannabis as the context. We find that researchers' decisions about study design matter. A modified Solomon Group Design was used in which participants were either assigned to a group that had a pretest (within-subjects design) or a posttest only group (between-subjects design). Furthermore, participants were exposed to one of three messages-one of two consensus messages or a control message-attributed to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. A consensus message describing a percent (97%) of agreeing scientists was more effective at shifting public attitudes than a consensus message citing substantial evidence, but this was only true in the between-subject comparisons. Participants tested before and after exposure to a message demonstrated pre-sensitization effects that undermined the goals of the messages. Our results identify these nuances to the effectiveness of scientific consensus messaging, while serving to reinforce the importance of study design.

Science communication via testimony requires a certain level of trust. But in the context of ideologically-entangled scientific issues, trust is in short supply—particularly when the issues are politically ‘entangled’. In such cases, cultural values are better predictors than scientific literacy for whether agents trust the publicly-directed claims of the scientific community. In this paper, we argue that a common way of thinking about scientific literacy—as knowledge of particular scientific facts or concepts—ought to give way to a second-order understanding of science as a process as a more important notion for the public’s trust of science.

This study examines the conflation of terms such as "knowledge" and "understanding" in peer-reviewed literature, and tests the hypothesis that little current research clearly distinguishes between importantly distinct epistemic states. Two sets of data are presented from papers published in the journal Public Understanding of Science. In the first set, the digital text analysis tool, Voyant, is used to analyze all papers published in 2014 for the use of epistemic success terms. In the second set of data, all papers published in Public Understanding of Science from 2010-2015 are systematically analyzed to identify instances in which epistemic states are empirically measured. The results indicate that epistemic success terms are inconsistently defined, and that measurement of understanding, in particular, is rarely achieved in public understanding of science studies. We suggest that more diligent attention to measuring understanding, as opposed to mere knowledge, will increase efficacy of scientific outreach and communication efforts.

Strategies for effectively communicating scientific findings to the public are an important and growing area of study. Recognizing that some complex subjects require recipients of information to take a more active role in constructing an understanding, we sought to determine whether it was possible to increase subjects' intellectual effort via "priming" methodologies. In particular, we asked whether subconsciously priming "intellectual virtues" (IVs), such as curiosity, perseverance, patience, and diligence might improve participants' effort and performance on various cognitive tasks. In the first experiment, we found no significant differences in either effort or understanding between IV-primed and neutrally-primed individuals across two different priming techniques. The second experiment measured the effect of IV-priming on intellectual effort in simpler, shorter-duration puzzles and exploration activities; here, we observed an effect, but given its low strength and short duration, we do not believe that priming of IVs is a promising strategy for science communication.

Recent scholarship has identified a large and growing divide on how Republicans and Democrats view the issue of climate change. A number of these studies have suggested that this polarization is a product of systematic efforts to spread doubt about the reality of climate change through the media in general and conservative media in particular. However, research to date has largely relied on speculation about such a relationship rather than empirical evidence. We improve on existing research by conducting an empirical analysis of the factors affecting national-level, quarterly shifts in public concern about climate change between January 2001 and December 2014. Our analysis focuses on the potential role played by four factors that should account for changes in levels of concern regarding climate change: (1) media coverage, (2) extreme weather, (3) issuance of major scientific reports, and (4) changes in economic activity and foreign conflict. Some results suggest that partisan media influences beliefs in ways expected by communication scholars who describe “echo chamber” effects and “boomerang” effects. Among other supporting evidence, we find that partisan media not only strengthen views of like-minded audiences but also when Republicans are presented with opposing frames about climate change from liberal media, they appear to reject the messages such that they are less concerned about the issue. Findings also demonstrate that the dissemination of science increases concern about climate change among Democrats but has no influence on Republicans. Finally, extreme weather does not increase concern among Democrats or Republicans. Implications for future research are discussed.

A survey covering the scientific and social aspects of climate change was administered to examine U.S. undergraduate student mental models, and compare knowledge between groups based on major and environmental group membership. A Knowledge Score (scale 0-35, mean score = 17.84) was generated for respondents at two, central East Coast, U.S. universities (n = 465). Elements of student mental models examined include environmental issue confusion, skepticism, and self-reported understanding. This study finds that students frequently confuse climate change with other environmental issues, and that a substantial majority of students do not have an understanding of climate change that closely matches the scientific model. These misconceptions extend to their understanding of mitigation actions. Environmental group membership is shown to be a greater determinant of climate change knowledge than enrollment in a science major.