The most common mistake science communicators make
At the beginning of the COVID pandemic, I had a simple and naive thought: if I just explain the science clearly enough, people will understand and stop believing misinformation!
What a sweet, sweet summer child I was.
I very quickly encountered reality. While there were many people who appreciated clear explanations, I discovered that for many others, the motives leading them to embrace false information wasn’t about the facts at all.
I remember one friend who shared a video full of nonsense about the pandemic that was going viral. He shared it not because he believed it was true (he said he didn’t know if it was true) — he shared it because he was angry the video was being taken down from social media sites and wanted to protest these policies. Another person had zero interest in anything I said about COVID vaccines, not because they thought I was unintelligent, but because they were so angry about mandates.
Throwing more facts at situations like these doesn’t help because their primary concerns isn’t about the facts — it’s about other issues. Yet that’s exactly what many of us did.
The deficit model
This is known as “the deficit model” of science communication, and it is wrong, but so easy to fall into as a science communicator.
This model originated in the 1970s as an explanation of why the public doesn’t accept scientific consensus on certain topics, and it provides an (incomplete) solution on how to address this issue. Very simply, it says the primary reason people don’t follow science-based guidelines is due to lack of knowledge. And, if we just give them that knowledge — explaining the facts and data behind the recommendations — it will fix the problem.
It sounds simple enough, and it would be nice if it were true. But human behavior is a bit more complicated than that…
