by Kathryn A. Coniglio, M.S. & Jessica L. Hamilton, Ph.D., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey
Our country is in the midst of two crises: the COVID-19 pandemic and an “infodemic” of misinformation (World Health Organization, 2021), conspiracy theories, and alternative facts. From the resistance to following scientific advice about virus containment to the January 6th capitol riots in Washington DC, anti-science rhetoric has actively contributed to the loss of human life. Although this movement has gained momentum over the past several years, the pandemic has shed light on the degree to which this unfortunate truth has taken root. Simply put, it appears that it is now acceptable not to believe in science. All scientists have a role to play in improving trust in our field, but clinical scientists are uniquely positioned to help. Because of our dual role as both scientists and clinical psychologists, we are already armed with the strategies needed to help mend public confidence in science. It is up to us to put our skills into practice. Below we offer our ideas for setting these wheels in motion.
Reinstating trust must start with improving science communication (Goldstein et al., 2020). As psychologists, we are repeatedly tasked with building trust through clear communication. In therapy sessions, we call trust is an integral part of the “therapeutic alliance,” and building this type of trust relies on conveying empathy and establishing shared goals. We structure our treatments to prioritize the delivery of early psychoeducation to build therapeutic alliance and produce rapid behavior change. Might we translate this communication strategy to address the larger problem of science mistrust? Moreover, as clinical scientists, we understand how emotions affect decision-making. We are empathic towards people who differ from us and we are trained to elicit helpful behaviors from people who have ambivalence about change. Motivational interviewing (MI), for example, is a proposed strategy to reduce vaccine hesitancy (Boness et al., preprint) because of its emphasis on meeting people where they are to elicit and evoke change. Future work should identify whether MI or other therapeutic approaches can be adopted to address science mistrust more broadly. Using our clinical skills, we can engage with people to improve science communication.
Science communication does not only occur on an individual level; it can and should happen systemically, too. Our field has taken on a similar challenge in addressing the mental health treatment gap (Kazdin, 2017). We are slowly improving our efforts to scale up mental health interventions to surmount barriers that impede access to care. The same strategies can be applied to improving science communication. Just as we have treatments that need to be delivered on a wider scale, we also have science information that needs to be communicated to the public.
So, what have we learned from our efforts to bridge the treatment gap that can aid in large-scale science communication? First, we need to meet people where they are. It is critical to position information in high-traffic places, like social media or opinion pieces in popular news outlets that might reach more diverse audiences. Second, just as we know that brief interventions work, we must package information succinctly to ensure attention and maximize retention from our intended audiences. Finally, we need to be vigilant about recognizing barriers that impede our own science communication efforts. In other words, if we know how effective communication can be in eliciting public health behavior change, why aren’t we prioritizing this type of public engagement?
In sum, psychologists might not be the scientists at the forefront of developing safe and effective vaccines, but we can be at the forefront of restoring confidence in science in general. We not only can, but must, leverage our clinical training to meet this moment.
Author’s Note:
There are certain individuals and organizations worth highlighting who communicate science effectively and who can serve as models for the field:
- Dr. Kevin Chapman
- ASAP Science and their podcast Sidenote
- Huberman Lab
- Raven the Science Maven
- American Association for the Advancement of Science
____________________________________________________________________________
References
Boness C, Nelson M, & Douaihy A (Preprint). Motivational interviewing strategies for addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy.
Goldstein, C. M., Murray, E. J., Beard, J., Schnoes, A. M., & Wang, M. L. (2020). Science communication in the Age of Misinformation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 54(12), 985-990.
Kazdin, A. E. (2017). Addressing the treatment gap: A key challenge for extending evidence-based psychosocial interventions. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 88, 7-18.
World Health Organization. Health topics: Infodemic. Retrieved 19 March 2021 from https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this newsletter are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Psychological Clinical Science Accreditation System (PCSAS).