It depends on whether you're Republican or Democrat
Johns Hopkins University
A new Johns Hopkins University study
finds stories to be significantly more motivating than scientific facts -- at
least for some people.
After hearing a compelling pollution-related story in which a man died, the average person paid more for green products than after having heard scientific facts about water pollution.
But the average person in the study was a Democrat.
Republicans paid less after hearing the story rather than the simple facts.
The
findings, published this week in the journal One Earth, suggest
message framing makes a real difference in people's actions toward the
environment. It also suggests there is no monolithic best way to motivate
people and policymakers must work harder to tailor messages for specific
audiences.
"Our findings suggest the power of storytelling may be more like preaching to the choir," said co-author Paul J. Ferraro, an evidence-based environmental policy expert and the Bloomberg Distinguished Professor of Human Behavior and Public Policy at Johns Hopkins.
"For
those who are not already leaning toward environmental action, stories might
actually make things worse."
Scientists
have little scientific evidence to guide them on how best to communicate with
the public about environmental threats. Increasingly, scientists have been
encouraged to leave their factual comfort zones and tell more stories that
connect with people personally and emotionally. But scientists are reluctant to
tell such stories because, for example, no one can point to a deadly flood or a
forest fire and conclusively say that the deaths were caused by climate change.
The
question researchers hoped to answer with this study: Does storytelling really
work to change people's behavior? And if so, for whom does it work best?
"We
said let's do a horserace between a story and a more typical science-based
message and see what actually matters for purchasing behavior," Ferraro
said.
Researchers
conducted a field experiment involving just over 1,200 people at an
agricultural event in Delaware. Everyone surveyed had lawns or gardens and
lived in watershed known to be polluted.
Through
a random-price auction, researchers attempted to measure how much participants
were willing to pay for products that reduce nutrient pollution. Before people
could buy the products, they watched a video with either scientific facts or
story about nutrient pollution.
In
the story group, participants viewed a true story about a local man's death
that had plausible but tenuous connections to nutrient pollution: he died after
eating contaminated shellfish. In the scientific facts group, participants
viewed an evidence-based description of the impacts of nutrient pollution on
ecosystems and surrounding communities.
After
watching the videos, all participants had a chance to purchase products costing
less than $10 that could reduce storm water runoff: fertilizer, soil test kits,
biochar and soaker hoses.
People
who heard the story were on average willing to pay more than those who heard
the straight science. But the results skewed greatly when broken down by
political party. The story made liberals 17 percent more willing to buy the
products, while making conservatives want to spend 14 percent less.
The
deep behavioral divide along party lines surprised Ferraro, who typically sees
little difference in behavior between Democrats and Republicans when it comes
to matters such as energy conservation.
"We
hope this study stimulates more work about how to communicate the urgency of
climate change and other global environmental challenges," said lead author
Hilary Byerly, a postdoctoral associate at the University of Colorado.
"Should the messages come from scientists? And what is it about this type
of story that provokes environmental action from Democrats but turns off
Republicans?"
This
research was supported by contributions from the Penn Foundation, the US
Department of Agriculture, The Nature Conservancy, and the National Science
Foundation.
