By Cindy Marven, CoP Coordinator
It [will be] a dark and stormy night…with a 70% chance of rain and wind gusts reaching 80 km/hr
Increasingly, scientists are asked to communicate their results to a wider audience in language and formats that are readily understood by a non-expert audience. Reading two recent articles in Ensia and the Guardian made me think about how narrative stories are used in risk communication. How effective are they? And what are some of the pitfalls of using stories to communicate risk?
A story is a narrative that is a “causally linked temporal sequence of events involving specific human-like characters” (The Science of Science Communication II, p. 60). A shallow dive into the science and risk communication literature shows that people in a wide range of fields have been working to understand the use of stories in science and risk communication for several decades (Plough & Krimsky, 2004). In fact people have likely been using stories to warn others about risks for as long as humans have communicated (Plough & Krimsky, 2004). Storytelling narratives have been studied directly or used in different stages of scientific studies – not just for communicating findings. For examples see Golding, Krimsky, & Plough, 1992; Bekalu et al., 2018; Plough & Krimsky, 2004; Cullen & Fein, 2005; Sanne 2008; and Ricketts et al., 2010.
Dahlstrom (2014) provides a synthesis and discussion of current research concerning the use of storytelling in science communication from the perspectives of the research community and mass media. According to research cited in Dahlstrom (2014), science communication and storytelling are strikingly different in their approach and perspective and may even represent two distinct ways of processing information. Science communication is based on deductive reasoning, whereas storytelling rests in the realm of inductive reasoning. In contrast to traditional science communication that strives for context-free facts, storytelling is a context-embedded mode of communication, that relies on narratives connecting cause and effect over a time period, with a plot, character, dramatization, and conclusion. Once a narrative is accepted, people tend to discard or modify evidence against it, making it difficult to counter with fact.
The inherently persuasive aspect of storytelling, and the means of creating an engaging story – such as pruning details to fit a theme, dramatizing, emotionalization, fictionalizing, and personification – challenge the conventional approach for communicating scientific results. So, why is there interest in using a storytelling narrative style to communicate science?
Dahlstrom (2014) offers two main reasons:
1) We already get most of our science information in the form of stories. For example, in the United States, people already get most (about 90%) of their science, health and environmental information in a narrative format (TV, internet, print media, social media, government, friends and family) (National Science Board, 2012; McCarthy, Brennan et al., 2008). By using stories, scientists may have a better chance of reaching and engaging the public with their results. Also, there is the argument that, if scientists don’t provide interpreted and narrative-ready scientific findings, their findings will be interpreted and shaped into stories by others communicating unintended messages (see for example Amberg & Hall 2010, Riesch & Spiegelhalter 2011 or McCarthy et al., 2008).
2) Storytelling is an effective form of communication. There is evidence that our brains more readily accept, understand, and retain information we receive in story form when compared the logistic-scientific form. The use of dramatization, personification, and other elements essential to storytelling evoke emotions and could inspire people to act on suggestions. Stories can be told using other media as well – video, cartooning, verbal accounts, etc.
The inherent persuasiveness and ability to evoke emotion by the use of stories calls into question the ethics of whether storytelling should be used to communicate science or risk. The line between providing someone with information for decision-making versus persuading them to take a specific decision can be hard to discern. And, not surprisingly, if people suspect they are being manipulated the persuasion becomes ineffective (Dahlstrom 2014).
Here are three guiding questions to help decide whether communicating your risk or science message in a storytelling narrative is appropriate (Dahlstrom & Ho, 2012 (in Dahlstrom 2014, p.13617):
- Is the underlying goal persuasion or comprehension? Dahlstrom (2014) argues that both could be ethical goals, depending on the circumstances. Listening to others’ risk stories could provide insight into their perspectives, perhaps improving understanding of different points of view.
- What level of accuracy is needed in the narrative? What are the necessary realistic elements to maintain and what elements can be modified to increase the story’s appeal? It’s important to maintain the gist (Valerie Reyna, see video ~0:58) of the message and essential elements needed to ground a story in reality, while relaxing or modifying other elements for making an engaging story.
- Should narratives be used at all? Does the public expect scientists to communicate a certain way (logical-scientific), and if they don’t, is a social norm violated – perhaps making people less trusting of scientists? Would it contribute to a loss of credibility? Trust and credibility are critical to risk dialogue. Another concern is that narratives are hard to counter with fact and once narratives become accepted, people modify their understanding to support the accepted narratives.
The role of emotion (affect) in risk communication is influential (Visschers, Wiedemann, et. al., 2012) and is also an essential part of a ‘good’ story. Risk messages framed as emotional appeals result in increased risk perception, increased perception of probability, and better memory of the message in comparison with messages framed with a logical appeal (Kim & Choi, 2017). Risk stories and scenarios can induce emotion both integrally (intentionally) and incidentally (unintentionally) (Visschers, Weidemann, et al., 2012). The ability of stories to evoke emotion can result in unexpected responses; and possibly influence people to ignore probability information in favor of the narrative (Sunstein 2003 in Visschers, Weidemann, et al., 2012).
The frame (positive, negative) and and format used to express probability evoke emotions (fear, anger, sadness, outrage), which influences risk aversion, perception and behaviour (Visschers, Weidemann, et al., 2012). People who are less numerically proficient are more influenced by narratives than statements of likelihood. The use of narratives with statements of likelihood (percentage) increased the ability to interpret and use percentages (Dieckmann, et. al., 2009).
So what’s the gist of all this? Communicating risk with a story, a chain of events with emotional appeal, imagery, metaphors, settings, scenarios, and other elements, will make the message more interesting, easy to remember, and persuasive. Unfortunately, it may also result in unintended responses, with an unknown impact on the credibility and trustworthiness of of scientists who are normally expected to communicate in a different way. Providing a risk story to the public via a press release does not mean that the risk story will remain unchanged until it reaches its audience; it will be edited, interpreted, understood, and formed to fit with journalistic goals (see Reisch & Spiegelhalter, 2011) and the public will also interpret and comment from their perspective. Using a story to communicate risk involves careful consideration of both potential benefits and risk – risk analysis, anyone?
Resources
With serendipitous timing, a day after I posted this blog entry, a recording of a discussion held on July 31, 2018 at the University of Sydney called, Is Storytelling Bad for Science was uploaded to SoundCloud. It’s well worth listening to.
Check out Dahlstrom (2014) and Visschers et al., (2012). If you don’t have journal access to Dahlstrom (2014) see Science Narratives: Mass Media and Ethical Considerations (p. 60) of The Science of Science Communication II: Summary of a Colloquium. (2013) where there is a summary of Dahlstrom (2014).
For an exploration of the narratives of trust, transparency, coverup, and risk, in the form of a movie, see Ferreira (2004) in analysis of the film, Erin Brockovich.
For a morbidly entertaining ‘read it and weep’ piece on how research findings and recommendations morph from a report, to a press release, to journalistic articles, to public discussion and commentary, read, Riesch & Spiegelhalter, 2011.
Watch this video by Valerie Reyna, called ‘Risk Communication and Risky Decision Making: From Viruses to Vaccines’ (note: the video runs about 15 minutes, not 30 as stated). Communicating the ‘gist’ or essence of a message in the context of a story, rather than through ‘verbatum’ facts, is an effective way to communicate – people listen, remember, and are more likely to act.
And if you are interested in how our brains process verbal storytelling, Uri Hasson’s TED Talk, ‘This is Your Brain on Communication’. It’s fascinating to see visualizations of a functional MRI machine of how prior knowledge affects our interpretation of narratives, and to consider the implications for science and risk communication.
An example of cartooning (static and video) by PhD Comics. “Piled Higher and Deeper” by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com. On the Higgs Bosun: http://phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1684. See also an earlier video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IqAWqwh3Etw.
References
Amberg, S. M., & Hall, T. E. (2010). Precision and Rhetoric in Media Reporting About Contamination in Farmed Salmon. Science Communication, 32(4), 489–513. https://doi.org/10.1177/1075547009357599
Valerie Reyna: Risk Communication and Risky Decision Making: From Viruses to Vaccines. May 21-22, 2012. The Sackler Colloquium – The Science of Science Communication. National Academy of Sciences. Washington, DC. YouTube Video Posted July 2, 2012. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZwGx5DQQpc&feature=context-chv
Bekalu, M. A., Bigman, C. A., McCloud, R. F., Lin, L. K., & Viswanath, K. (2018). The relative persuasiveness of narrative versus non-narrative health messages in public health emergency communication: Evidence from a field experiment. Preventive Medicine, 111, 284–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.11.014
Cullen, E. T., & Fein, A. H. (2005). Tell me a Story: Why Stories are Essential to Effective Safety Training. Report of Investigation 9664 (No. DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2005-152). Cincinnati, OH: NIOSH — Publications Dissemination ( NIOSH Web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/UserFiles/works/pdfs/2005-152.pdf
Dahlstrom, M. F. (2014). Using narratives and storytelling to communicate science with nonexpert audiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 201320645. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320645111
Dieckmann, N. F., Slovic, P., & Peters, E. M. (2009). The Use of Narrative Evidence and Explicit Likelihood by Decision-makers Varying in Numeracy. Risk Analysis, 29(10), 1473–1488. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.2009.01279.x
Enfield, Nick. July 20, 2018. Our job as scientists is to find the truth. But we must also be storytellers. The Guardian International Edition https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jul/20/our-job-as-scientists-is-to-find-the-truth-but-we-must-also-be-storytellers?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Gmail
Ferreira, C. (2004). Risk, transparency and cover up: media narratives and cultural resonance. Journal of Risk Research, 7(2), 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/1366987042000171294
Golding, D., Krimsky, S., & Plough, A. (1992). Evaluating Risk Communication: Narrative vs. Technical Presentations of Information About Radon. Risk Analysis, 12(1), 27–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1992.tb01304.x
Hasson, Uri. 2006. This is Your Brain on Communication. TED Talk, Vancouver, June 3, 2006. Accessed July 27, 2018. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDhlOovaGrI&feature=youtu.be.
Kim, M., & Choi, Y. (2017). RISK COMMUNICATION: THE ROLES OF MESSAGE APPEAL AND COPING STYLE. Social Behavior and Personality, 45(5), 773–784. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.6327
McCarthy, M., Brennan, M., De Boer, M., & Ritson, C. (2008). Media risk communication – what was said by whom and how was it interpreted. Journal of Risk Research, 11(3), 375–394. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669870701566599
National Science Board. (2012). Science and Technology: Public Attitudes and Understanding (Science and Engineering Indicators 2012). Arlington VA: National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/seind12.pdf
Olson, Randy. July 18, 2018. Now more than ever, scientists need to communicate better. Here’s how. Sharing research effectively boils down to one simple concept: Tell a good story. Ensia https://ensia.com/voices/science-communication/
Plough, A., & Krimsky, S. (2004). The Emergence of Risk Communication Studies: Social and Political Context. In Readings in Risk (5th (2004), pp. 223–231). Washington, DC: John Hopkins University Press.
Ricketts, M., Shanteau, J., McSpadden, B., & Fernandez-Medina, K. M. (2010). Using stories to battle unintentional injuries: Narratives in safety and health communication. Social Science & Medicine, 70(9), 1441–1449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.12.036
Riesch, H., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2011). “Careless pork costs lives”: risk stories from science to press release to media. Health, Risk and Society, 13(1), 47–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2010.540645
Sanne, J. M. (2008). Incident reporting or storytelling? Competing schemes in a safety-critical and hazardous work setting. Safety Science, 46(8), 1205–1222. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.024
The Science of Science Communication II: Summary of a Colloquium. (2013). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18478
Visschers, V., Wiedemann, P., Gutscher, H., Kurzenhauser, S., Seidl, R., & Jardine, C. (2012). Affect-inducing risk communication: current knowledge and future directions. Journal of Risk Research, 15(3), 257–271. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2011.634521
___________________________________________