The Power of Bridge Building
An empathetic approach to science communication
Science communication: It’s something I have grown to love—I’d go so far as to say it is my life’s passion—but it’s a skill that I continue to finetune over time. There’s so much that goes into science communication. Of course, there’s the substantive content being conveyed— but I have come to realize that the way we communicate is as important (if not more important) than what we are communicating.
On tomorrow’s episode of the pod, you’ll hear my conversation with Dr. Matthew Facciani—a fellow science communicator who does an incredible job of sharing science in a way that is accessible to a wide variety of people. (Dr. Facciani’s background in social science informs the way he communicates—and it’s something we discussed at length on the pod.) We had a really fantastic conversation, one that continued even after we stopped recording, about different ways to effectively communicate and how there’s a time and place for different communication styles.
It got me thinking about the ways that I have evolved as a science communicator and some of the trends I’ve noticed with regard to how the information I share is received (and translated into action) for the audience reached. As I look back on the content I have developed for Unbiased Science over the past four years, I realize that I’ve taken different approaches over time and depending on the topic. Even with regard to the same topic, I’ve tried different approaches. Take content on vaccines: there are some posts where I focus mainly on the data and share the latest studies on the effectiveness and safety of vaccines. Others take a more emotional approach and focus on the loss of life and hospitalizations as a result of preventable illness. Some focus on the societal benefit of vaccines while others focus on the individual risks of not getting vaccinated. Some posts are more “aggressive” in tone (I remember feeling a sort of desperation to help communicate the benefits of vaccination during the peak of the pandemic that I see translated in the content shared), while others take a less urgent tone.
The most rewarding part of science communication is when people reach out to share the impact the content has made. Over the years, there have been hundreds if not thousands of messages from people who have shared that Unbiased Science has challenged their preconceived notions and impacted some of their decision-making around food choices, vaccines, supplements, and much more. This is why I continue to do this kind of work.
Though I have not yet formally assessed the impact of different types of communication styles I’ve, personally, employed—I have anecdotally noticed that the content that “meets people” where they are is the content that tends to have the biggest impact on changes in knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.
Of course, there’s literature on the topic—so I thought I’d summarize some of what’s been previously published. (Shoutout to Dr. Facciani for sharing some studies with me—including this one on Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides.)
Overarching Theme: The Importance of Connection and Common Ground
Bridging Divides: Research suggests that polarizing approaches to science communication can backfire, reinforcing divisions rather than fostering understanding. Your focus on bridge-building is a strategy supported by evidence.
Meeting People Where They Are: Effective communicators recognize that audiences have different knowledge bases, values, and experiences. Tailoring your message, finding relatable examples, and acknowledging other viewpoints enhances communication, rather than alienating your audience.
Empathy and Trust: Building trust is crucial in science communication. Demonstrating empathy for differing perspectives and avoiding condescending or dismissive stances helps establish common ground and openness to new information.
Motivated Reasoning: People tend to process information in ways that confirm pre-existing beliefs. Understanding this bias helps communicators frame messages in ways that resonate rather than trigger defensiveness.
The Backfire Effect: When presented with information that strongly contradicts their beliefs, people might double down on those beliefs, rather than change their minds. This highlights the need for a nuanced, empathetic approach.
Values and Identity: People often hold science-related beliefs that are tied to their values and sense of identity. Acknowledge and respect these connections to create a more open dialogue.
Framing: How information is presented (the "frame") can greatly impact how it's received. Focus on frames that connect with your audience's values and concerns.
Something that really stood out to me as I read research on this topic was that “facts don’t always change people’s minds.” So I dug deeper into some of these concepts including tribalism, confirmation bias, and emotional appeals that play a role in communication receptivity and impact.
It's easy for science communicators to fall into the trap of tribalism. The passion for a subject can drive a desire to rally like-minded individuals, creating an enthusiastic “in-group” (more on this in a sec). While this has benefits for fostering community and support for science, it also has potential downsides…
What is Tribalism?
In-Group/Out-Group Dynamics: Tribalism describes the strong tendency to identify with specific groups (in-groups), often leading to a sense of superiority over other perceived groups (out-groups). This creates an "us vs. them" mentality.
Confirmation Bias Amplified: Within tribes, information that supports existing beliefs is readily accepted, while contradictory information is often dismissed, even if reliable. This leads to a reinforcement of ideas within the tribe.
Emotional Appeals: Tribal communication heavily relies on emotional appeals: fear, anger, and a sense of belonging. These tactics can be highly persuasive within the group but solidify barriers to outside information.
Potential Downsides:
Othering of Skeptics: When science communicators focus too heavily on rallying their own tribe, it can lead to demonizing or dismissing those with different perspectives. This reinforces the "us vs. them" mentality and discourages constructive dialogue.
Oversimplification: Attempting to create easily shared, emotionally charged messages for one's own tribe can lead to oversimplifying complex scientific issues or misrepresenting opposing views.
Missed Opportunities: Focusing energy inward on the tribe might mean missing the opportunity to engage with wider audiences and build bridges to foster greater understanding of the science.
How Tribalism Hinders Science Communication
Echo Chambers: Tribes often exist in echo chambers, where they mainly hear information and viewpoints mirroring their own. This hinders exposure to diverse perspectives and new evidence.
Rejection of Expertise: When scientific information conflicts with a tribe's beliefs, experts associated with that information may be dismissed as part of an opposing out-group.
Hardening of Positions: The "us vs. them" mentality can make it difficult for those within a tribe to change their minds even when confronted with compelling evidence. Admitting they were wrong could mean losing their sense of belonging.
For all of these reasons, Unbiased Science will be leaning into bridge-building.
As an extremely empathetic person, I would hate for well-intentioned content to backfire or make people feel judged or “turned off” because it was presented in a way that came across as too harsh or absolutist. (As I’ve said ad nauseam, science is all about the gray—and while we as scientists are rightfully critical of others for making all-or-none statements, we also need to be careful not to share things without proper nuance or context.) I hope to foster polite discourse, avoid echo chambers, and have those sometimes-uncomfortable-conversations with people who are skeptical of science (sometimes for good reason).
We have to recognize that there are a variety of reasons why people believe the things they do and why some are more prone to believing misinformation. We are all products of different upbringings, cultures, levels of education, experiences, risk tolerances, and more. Just as health is multi-factorial, so is our consumption of health and science information!
We’ll be focused on the following:
Breaking Echo Chambers: Finding common ground and connecting with different tribes opens them up to new perspectives, ultimately facilitating the flow of accurate information.
Shared Values: Emphasizing shared values (e.g., concern for family well-being, a desire for a healthy planet) can bypass tribal divisions and create a basis for conversation.
Change from Within: When individuals within a group start questioning beliefs, it's much more powerful for behavioral change than outside pressure. Your empathetic approach can subtly plant the seeds for this internal shift.
Interestingly, while many people seem to be supportive of this shift in tone—others (within the science community) are worried that I will be aligning with people who actively share mis- or disinformation. Am I selling out? Never. I won’t ever share information that is not evidence-based on this page—but I may have conversations with people with whom I am not aligned 100%.
Just recently, I was a guest on a podcast (I believe it will air in the next day or two) that reaches an audience of people who consider themselves to be in the “wellness” space. It was one of the more difficult conversations I’ve had because I knew some of the folks I was speaking to were in an “out-group” (some came into the conversation thinking that organic foods are more nutritious, that supplements are necessary/beneficial, and that aspartame causes cancer, etc.)—but also one of the most rewarding because I was sharing data and evidence with folks who needed to hear it!
I left the conversation feeling like I had a real impact. The conversation was respectful, people were receptive, and I am confident that I exposed the audience to concepts of which they were previously unaware.
This doesn’t mean I am going to roll over and suddenly be okay with bad information. Unfortunately, there are bad players out there who intentionally share disinformation—and those people should be called out.
Unbiased Science is not going to change the type of content shared (nor the scientific rigor with which we review the credibility or validity of data), but we might reframe the way we share information.
As always, thank you for your support.