Iain Walker 0:03 So welcome everyone. This is breakout session number three, I hope you are meant to be here. If you mean to be in a different session, please use the breakout rooms button at the bottom of the screen to navigate to where you want to be. And as you search, this session is being recorded. That will include all the questions or comments in the chat and we'll use that feedback to the conference organisers. So in this breakout session we'll be hearing five different five minute presentations. Following that, we'll use whatever remaining time we have for Q&A and a general discussion. As speakers go through their talks, if you have questions, please post them in the chat box and we'll return to them after all the speakers have finished. Eryn and I are both from the Research School Psychology at the ANU, both involved in the science communication cross-cutting theme within HEAL as are some of the people in the audience today. And Eryn and I are both excited about this session, about convening the session we are about to learn a lot. So although the session is entitled science communication and science communication, per se, is certainly part of what the HEAL network plans to have happen in that theme; we also think of this much more broadly. So both the network theme and today's session have to do with research translation. Science Communication is a part of that to be sure, but it's just one part. So Eryn and I have configured today's session with a broad remit to compass this idea to improve our understanding of science communication, with perception, overcoming perceptions of barriers to attitudinal, behavioural and socio economic change. All within the context of the interrelatedness of environmental change in human wellbeing. We've asked each of our five speakers to address these broad issues from their own unique perspectives, we hope from that will stimulate discussion or conversation about what will be the research foci for this particular theme within the HEAL network. So with that, I'd like to introduce our first speaker, Professor Kathryn Williams is a professor in environmental psychology and ecosystem for Sciences at the University of Melbourne. Researchers brilliantly concerned with psychosocial dimensions of environmental management, particularly the emotional and cognitive factors that shape conservation behaviour and public response to environmental policy and management. So, Kath, I'm desperately hoping you are online. Kathryn Williams 3:08 I am. Iain Walker 3:09 Okay. I don't know if you have slides that you need to share. Kathryn Williams 3:13 No, no. I'll just tell some stories. Iain Walker 3:15 Yeah. Okay, tell some stories. And I'll wave my hands after five minutes. Kathryn Williams 3:20 Thanks, Iain. And hi, everyone from Wurundjeri land. So I work in a field, in the field of environmental psychology primarily, but I'm in an interdisciplinary School which is focused on ecosystem management. So psychologically grounded, but centred on forests and fire management, urban greening, and biodiversity conservation. So I thought today I'd tell some stories about some of the work I'm doing with the Victorian Department of Environment, Land, Water and Planning, or DELP as I'll call it throught this brief talk. This work is part of a long term and interdisciplinary integrated forest and ecosystem research programme that I'm part of, and I've chosen to tell you these stories, because I think these programmes' work has something to say about research translation, particularly when we're focusing on change in environmental policy and practice. And for me, also, it points to some of the most important questions that I think organisations need to be addressing in this domain. So it's a long term programme of work. And I'll start with the first phase of work on DELP, we're really focused on strategic bushfire management planning. They wanted to understand how to prioritise their risk-reduction activities in a way that responded more explicitly to the expectations of communities. So we worked with DELP on questions around values of the public, including how to understand values, how to observe them through interviews and surveys in a way that could reach bushfire management concepts with those with community experiences. And our goal in that work was to help planners consider what we hoped would be a more inclusive and meaningful range of values than they had in past work. So we wanted to see them moving beyond thinking about property, ecosystem resilience to also thinking about things like mental health and cultural identity and other things we know matter to communities. So towards the end of that phase of research, we supported DELP to translate our findings as what they talked about as a valuation framework that could be applied in strategic bushfire planning. And we really felt like we were well on the way to beating this goal that we have in mind. In the second phase of the research, DELP became really deeply interested in how they could support their staff to understand and draw on this new social science knowledge in their planning practices, including how their staff might use this valuation framework. So in this space of the work, our team leant on sociological concepts to pose questions around social learning and practice change. The work that we did highlighted how deeply embedded problem framings within that organisation really stabilised practice to a great extent, made it difficult for these ecologically focused agency staff to engage with the social domain, especially where social data didn't fit with their well established quantitative and spatially based approaches to planning. It also pointed towards pathways to change, including things that might facilitate experimentation, and more effective collaboration between agencies. For me, this work really brought home how difficult system change is when we're thinking in this context, and the inadequacy of our typical notions of research translations. So we're now in the third phase of the research and DELP questions have shifted to more holistic questions about their relationships with communities. Among other things, there's the agency staff that we're working with are asking how they, as a government agency, can establish and maintain trust and understanding of communities while navigating the huge uncertainties associated with climate change. They're also asking how they can create better space for Indigenous knowledge and self-determination in forest and fire management. I think these are really excellent questions and so I offer them here as localised versions of some of the most vital questions I think we need to address as a broader community of scholars and practitioners. I also appreciate that the opportunity that we have to explore aspects of these difficult questions is predicated on our own good relationships. And I think for me, this draws attention to how we, as a community addressed such big questions. A key element for me is the trust that we've established with DELP staff through this very long term collaboration and through the increased expertise and sensitivity to the social domain, we have, in a small way, helped to foster through that collaboration. We've also found that our work is most fruitful when we cycled through phases together or joint conceptualization, researcher-led discovery and actual research with DELP that emphasises joint learning about practice change. And secondly, I think I'm really conscious that it depends on positive relationships with diverse communities. As a researcher trained in what has historically been a fairly extracted form of science, this involves a real reorientation in how we research to and in the first instance, for our team has meant expanding our team to include researchers from diverse cultural backgrounds, diversifying our methods to connect with harder to reach communities. I know we'll learn much more to move forward into that research. Thanks, Iain. Iain Walker 8:55 Thank you very much. Kath. Fascinating, insider account. If people do have questions, please post them in the chat but we'll press on. And our next speaker is Johnathan Cook from Monash, is a a postdoctoral research fellow at climate change communication research hub. And John, apologies I think I've just said Johnnathan. That's not your name at all. I'm sure all of you have heard the widely cited claim that 90%-97% of climate scientists accept climate science as anthropogenic climate science, John Cook is the person who did the study that led to the 97% figure. So John, I'm hoping you're online. And if you are, unmute yourself and start your video and your 5 minutes starts now. John Cook 10:00 Thanks, Iain. And just quickly fact-check you, we were the third study to find 97% consensus (Oh!) so do earlier studies before us. Iain Walker 10:16 So 100% of free researchers find 97% of climate scientists. Apologies. John Cook 10:19 No worries. So I'm gonna share my slide. I've got five minutes, I'm going to try to be quick. I want to quickly talk about my research into misinformation, and in developing solutions to counter misinformation. And really the principle that this work is based on is that a functioning democracy requires a well informed populace. And misinformation interferes with that. It has a range of negative impacts, not just causing people to believe wrong things, but it also polarises the public. It breeds mistrust of scientists, science and institutions. And it can cancel out accurate information, it can cancel that our efforts to educate and inform the public. And I've found a very useful framework for countering or neutralising misinformation is inoculation theory, which is a branch of psychological research which takes the idea of vaccination and applies it to knowledge. Just as we expose people to a weakened form of a virus in order to build up their immunity when they encounter the actual virus. In the same way, by exposing people to a weakened form of misinformation, you can build up their cognitive immunity so that they're less likely to be misled by misinformation. And by weakened form of misinformation, what I mean is an inoculating message typically requires two elements: warning people of the threat that they're going to be misled and counter arguments that explain how the misinformation misleads. So we published research a few years back now. Ullrich Ecker was one of my co authors. He'll be speaking a little bit later going into more detail into his research into countering misinformation. And now what we found was explaining the techniques used to mislead was not only effective in countering misinformation, it depolarised it or neutralised the polarising effect of misinformation, and also worked across issues. Explaining how a technique of misinformation in, for example, tobacco and misinformation, also conveyed immunity against the same technique used in climate change misinformation. And so I've found a useful framework for explaining the techniques of misinformation are the five techniques or characteristics of science denial summarised with the acronym FLICC because I have trouble remembering things. And over the years, I've been developing this FLICC taxonomy. And it's getting quite big now actually and I'm about to add a couple of extra fallacies on here because we're now starting to incorporate vaccine misinformation into this taxonomy. And I've been doing a lot of experiments into how do you explain to people these techniques used to mislead. What are practical ways to actually inoculate people? We've work-tested using critical thinking and explaining the fallacies within argument structures. We've also looked at using humour and cartoons not only to engage people, but also as an engaging, concrete way to explain the fallacies in misleading arguments. But, and while we found, got lots of interesting and useful results into the effectiveness of these approaches, just to take a step back, I've been thinking more and more about putting all these lab findings into practice in the real world comes with, brings a lot of challenges. And three things that I've been struggling with is a) if building people's critical thinking skills is the key to inoculating people against misinformation. Just at a very basic psychological level, critical thinking is hard. We're asking people to kind of exercise muscles they don't usually exercise. Secondly, our society is becoming more and more siloed, and that makes it hard to reach the audiences who need to receive these kinds of inoculating messages. And lastly, polarised issues like climate change and now increasingly, vaccination or COVID-19. They're becoming more polarised and people becoming more tribal in how they think about it. And that carries challenges, creates barriers to neutralising this misinformation. And so these are the kinds of things that the challenges that we need to be thinking about when we are developing solutions and trying to scale them up to actually shift the needle in the real world. And I'll very quickly just share with you one last project we've worked on, which is an attempt to address these three different challenges and we addressed it through the use of games. What we developed and launched our last December was a smartphone game that uses humour and gameplay elements to, I mean, obviously, to entertain people, to be funny, but most importantly, to deliver our inoculating messages in the form of a game. And what this does is not only explain the techniques used to mislead, but it gets people practising critical thinking by showing them misinformation and getting them to try to identify if the techniques of denial are used. That's practising the critical thinking task of identifying misleading techniques of denial, and by repeating that over and over a) it helps overcome that first challenge of the difficulties of critical thinking by practice making that task quicker and easier. It's what I've found, in practice, it helps overcome that second barrier of getting these kinds of interventions into siloed communities because I've found that educators are crying out for these kind of interactive educational resources and I'm seeing this game being adopted in classrooms that feel filled with the type of people that I would never actually be able to reach. That never would follow me on Twitter. And so I think I see third party messengers, like educators, or journalists, or other other messengers like that are a very powerful way to reach siloed communities. And the third thing we haven't done yet, but we're toying with, is using contests to appeal to people's tribal instincts to motivate them not to reject scientific information, but to motivate them to build their resilience against misinformation. So in games off, potentially offer that opportunity. I'll stop there, and hope I didn't go too far out of my five minutes. Iain Walker 17:20 Thank you very much, John. Lots of questions in the chat about Cranky Uncle. Our next speaker is Kelly Fielding, but I'm not sure... Kelly if you're, if you're online give us a yell. But if not, let's move on then to Janie Busby Grant, who's Senior Lecturer in psychology at the University of Canberra. Cognitive Psychologist and several of our earlier speakers today talked about the importance of the future and thinking about the future, which is a perfect segway for Janie's work. So over to you Janie. Janie Busby Grant 18:06 Thanks again. So yes, I'm a researcher in cognitive psych at the University of Canberra. And in particular, I look at how we imagine our own personal futures. So how we kind of imagined our own futures and how that's linked with things like memory planning, decision making, and mental health, as well. But I'm actually going to segway a little bit, Iain, you told me to go off pace. So I do quite a bit of work now as well in robotics in human-robot interaction. And one thing that's really noticeable there that I find then applying in my cog psych work as well is there's, everyone loves robots, right? But there's a lot of businesses out there that create robots in the lab, that then go on to fail. So we're talking about situations where people, you know, in a lab, much representing a lot of the research work we do, they're testing these robots, watching how people interact mainly with the people around them, which tend to be engineers, tend to be male. And then they develop this product, and they go out and they deliver it in the real world. And the business fails, because people out in the real world are not engaging with his product the way they thought they would. In other words, we'd call it a failure in ecological validity, right? And what I'm fascinated about there is such a clear failure. And many of the things we do in our own work have the same kind of inherent biases in the way that we're the tools that we use and the kind of tests that we use, but it's not as obvious when you see that clear failure when we go to apply it, when we go to translate it and so I think it's a really kind of useful analogy to use. So I've been working a lot with a pop philosopher as well because you know, what else do you do on Monday morning, but sit around and justify your own epistemology. Doesn't everyone? But it's been really interesting to have to really vocalise some of the current problems I see in my field. And, you know, a really, a really easy example of this. It's low hanging fruit, though, is a particular nature that you see sometimes in climate change research as well, which is delayed gratification. You know, so this is the, the basic study that, you know, you put one marshmallow in front of a kid, and if they can wait and not eat it, they get two marshmallow. So I've run this myself, with both children and we do it with adults as well. Where we state: do you want 10 bucks now, or 15 bucks if you wait two weeks? Things like that. And it's a really appealing paradigm. Because you get, you know, we love numbers, you get a number that represents everybody. And you can plug that into whatever kind of analysis you happen to be running. But with these tests, like so many others it's just embedded in this kind of value judgement that lighter is necessarily better. And I realised in a climate kind of change context, where we're really presuming that thinking about the future is better. But what we're talking about right now is actually translation, and how to get through to people and how to actually enact behavioural change. And, you know, I have a whole bunch of family that live in Papua New Guinea. And when I tell them about this, they laugh uproariously. Because the idea that, you know, the piece of cake you left in the fridge is going to be there tomorrow, or even the shirt that you hung on your line is going to be there tomorrow, is laughable. And so the idea that people like this would be "failing" a delayed gratification test just because they're selecting an option that totally makes sense in their own environment. And you know, that's an easy example. But there's other things like, well, maybe taking the now option is the good one, if what that means is you can share it with those around you. How is that more negative than kind of keeping your wealth to yourself and hoarding it for some future time? So I guess that's, it link in what, with what Kathryn was saying earlier about this needing diversity when we're kind of designing these tools and having these conversations and I guess my, one of my real concerns at the moment is talking to the next generation of researchers, and really trying to get them, how do we get them to question the tools that are already there when it's all too easy to go and get an off the shelf measure that's already been validated, but perhaps has not actually been validated. In terms of the way we'd like to think about it, which is a kind of a real world outcome. Iain Walker 22:43 Thank you very much, Janie. And I would be disappointed if you didn't go off, please. Thank you. Last speaker then for today is Ullie Ecker from University of Western Australia, where he is an ARC future fellow, doing an awful lot of work on misinformation and combating the misinformation. So Ullie I'm hoping you're online and.. Ullrich Ecker 23:13 Right next to you on my screen. Iain Walker 23:15 Okay, then. Okay over to you. Ullrick Ecker 23:19 I do have slides. So I'm just going to share my screen here for a second. Just find them. There they are. Right. Thanks for having me. Yeah, thanks for John for doing half the work for me and explaining what inoculation is, and so on. So I'll just spend my five minutes on talking about how I think misinformation is a challenge for environmental behaviour change. My work is mainly concerned with the continued influence of misinformation, which means that misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning and their decision-making behaviours, even after they've received clear and credible corrections and believe them and can remember them. So it's basically sort of an effect of a failure of knowledge revision or memory updating. That, of course, is also influenced by social and motivational factors. But it's in its essence, I think, a cognitive effect that people continue to be influenced by things they actually know to be false. As I said, it's a cognitive effect even thought social-motivational factors can also contribute. We've designed a range of interventions, both pre-emptive and reactive. So pre-emptive interventions would be the types of inoculation one and warnings that John has talked about, reactive interventions would be just be debunking misinformation after the fact. And both of these approaches work, they both have impact. But neither of them can actually offset the impact of misinformation entirely, at least at the group level. With individuals that can of course be fully effective, but they usually not fully effective at the group level. And it's important to think about the ongoing influence that misinformation has in terms of not only the impact of blatant disinformation and explicit misinformation but also with more subtle misdirection where the information is literally true, but still misleading, where it's misleading headlines, where it's misleading framing, and I'll talk mainly about those. Here's just an example to illustrate. So in this recent study, we gave people either implied or explicit misinformation about fair trade saying it's, you know, it's a big scam in the explicit condition. And what this graph shows is simply that compared to a baseline condition, which is the dashed line that if you expose people to misinformation it does influence the reasoning. As you would expect, though, they rely more on misinformation after they've been exposed to it. But importantly, the pre-bunking and de-bunking interventions that we apply are effective, they work, but they're not effective enough to drive these bars back down to baseline, right. So that's the continued influence that we see of the misinformation. We also try and use more behavioural measures. So this one is where we got people to participate in experimental auctions and measures their willingness to pay for fair trade products in this in this case, we will see that at least the explicit misinformation reduces people's willingness to pay. And in this case, the pre-bunking is entirely ineffective, only the debunking seems to work. But again, we often don't see these interventions, returning things back to baseline. Another type of more implicit misinformation is example of that is this one, where you know, gas is being sort of sold as the best option to lead an economic recovery from COVID-19, where we thought that well, if you make this argument that, you know, we've saved some emissions last year, so now we can go full throttle and jumpstart the economy again. That might actually resonate with some people and we were concerned that it might reduce people's climate change concerns and their support for mitigative action, which is exactly what we found in this US sample. So relative to a control group, we found that a framing that portrays climate change is a concern that needs to take a backseat while focus lies on economic recovery, reduces people with climate change concern, and in particular, they support for mitigative action. An alternative frame where we sort of framed the response to COVID-19 as a trial run for future climate action did pretty much nothing. We replicated this detrimental impact in a second study where we then also found that a combined inoculation refutation treatment again, only partially offset the effect. So an example of how implicit misinformation can have detrimental consequences. And finally, another, I would say misleading frame at the moment is this emphasis on people wanting to get back to normal. Where actually large groups of the population don't want to go back to normal. And there's also a lot of talk about perhaps building something better rather than returning to normal. So in one study, we looked at this. We presented people with four different vignettes, two of which focused on a return back to normal, two of which sketched a progressive future where we worry about climate change and social inequality. There's also a manipulation of distribution of power, but that didn't do much, so I'm not going to talk about it. But what we find is that people actually strongly prefer, both in the US and the UK representative samples, people strongly prefer a progressive future to return to normal. And that's true of everyone, but the hard right. But if you look at what they likely going to think, they likely going to get, they think they like more likely to get a return to normal rather than a progressive future. And if you look at what people think others want, they systematically underestimate how much others want to progress the future and overestimate how much others want to go back to normal. So just highlighting that, you know, pluralistic ignorance that we need to counter by getting actual people's opinions into public discourse. So just to close, I just wanted to say that I think focus on a healthy environment should also focus on the healthy information environment, because misinformation can have detrimental impacts and that we not only need targeted interventions, but also you know, education and probably regulation to foster a more healthy information culture. Thank you. Five minutes goes really quick when you're talking. Iain Walker 29:08 It does Ullie. Thank you very much for yet one more interesting presentation. Really important point about a healthy information environment. Information is part of the environment and reminds me of point 2 I made earlier, that we too are part of the environment because we're part of the problem. So I'd like to invite our last speaker, Kelly Fielding from University of Queensland Institute for Social Science Research. Who'll give us the last presentation and then I think we'll maybe just have five to eight minutes for a few questions and a little bit of discussion. So, Kelly, if you're... Kelly Fielding 29:56 Yes, I... Can you hear me okay Iain? Iain Walker 29:59 Can hear you perfectly fine. Thanks. Kelly Fielding 30:00 Great. (All the problems are fixed). I just wanted to start by taking a short amount of my time to apologise for yet another example of how quick people in Queensland can sometimes get it completely wrong, because everyone else is an hour ahead of them. So, I've missed out on all the wonderful talks that I was looking forward to hearing. And I'm sort of like flying blind, you know, talking about, you know, what I'm sort of, you know, what I thought I would say, without any sense of what anyone else has said. So, apologies if I'm repeating, or, you know, just going off topic. So anyway, I'm Kelly Fielding, I'm a social environmental psychologist from the University of Queensland. And although I apply that disciplinary label to myself, I just want to be very clear about the fact that I'm very interdisciplinary, very collaborative in my research, and have worked with people from lots of different backgrounds. From engineering, to conservation biology, to public health, and so on, and so forth. And also in a school of communication arts. So I work with humanities and communication scholars. At the heart of my research, is trying to understand why people don't care more and don't do more to protect the environment. And I know that some of you will think: Well, Kelly, a lot of people really do care about the environment. And I've completely agree with you. So probably one of the big focus or focus of my research is how we can take those people who really care about the environment, and actually get that concern to translate into policy support, into action on the ground. And so, working with my students and working with my collaborators, you know, I've addressed a range of issues, from water management, to climate change to, you know, increasing acceptance of recycled water is very much a science communication topic, to environmental health related topics, to environmental collective action, and lots more. One of my professional challenges is trying not to spread myself too thin. So, when I was thinking the mandate that Iain gave us was, you know, think about, you know, some big science and practical challenges. And I thought, Gosh, I could bang on for a lot longer than five minutes about that. But what I thought I would do is just constrain myself to maybe two, three, if I've got time, issues that pop into my mind. So the first of those I think, and again, I suspect, maybe this has been touched on by other people that came in at the very end of the last talk, is the role of vested interest. You know, I think this is something that Matthew Hornsey and I've written about in our work on attitude roots, you know, it's very difficult to convince somebody about the, you know, the importance of human induced climate change if that belief flies in the face of other closely held beliefs, or if indeed, it's going to undermine their livelihoods. And I remember a number of years ago, going to talk by Ross Garneau, where he really taught, he commented that he was seeing this increasing influence of vested interest in policy in Australia. I think that it's really clearly shown in question climate change, you know, those cashed up vested interests have done a fantastic job of undermining, you know, people's, or actually increasing uncertainty about the scientific consensus around climate change. But it's not just in relation to climate change, you know, when it comes to something like biodiversity protection, for example, there's also a lot of vested interest going on there. I actually think that researchers have done a great job of acknowledging that role of vested interest, but I still feel like, it's one of those things that we kind of step around a bit, you know, we, you know, we kind of know it's there, but we don't sort of approach it head on because we don't really know how to. And I should have said, the caveat that I should have said at the beginning of this discussion of challenges were that this is very much my personal list. And some of you out there might be going: Hey, I know, you know, some really fantastic research over in this discipline or that discipline, you know, that, you know, really does address this issue. So if that's the case, we're happy to hear about that. And excited to hear about that. On the other. Another challenge that I wanted to highlight, which I think is a very discipline specific one. So I'm really speaking as a psychologist here, as I think as psychologists are really great at exploring the drivers of people's environmentally related attitudes and behaviours, and it conducting these really nice controlled experiments. What we're not very good, I think, is getting our hands dirty in the real world. And, you know, of course, there are some notable exceptions to that. And there's some good reasons why that is the case. You know, so, it's hard to get those kind of real world field experiments published. You know, it's, you know, it's high stakes research for PhD students, but I do think where psychologists have gone out and collaborated with external organisations to address the issues that are important to them, and done it with people, real world people, not MTurkers, or students, then I think that that psychological research has had big impacts, you know, in addressing environmental and climate change related issues. So I would really love us to do more of that research, acknowledging that it is a tricky thing to do. And I'm not sure if I've run out of time, if I should make one final point? I want to leave enough time for Q&A. Iain Walker 35:33 If you can do it in 30 seconds, that'd be terrific. Kelly Fielding 35:36 Okay, my last 30 second point is we need to do more translation in our research. We need to make our research findings available to the people who can really use them. And you know, it would be great if the reward structures were there for us to do that as well. I'm going to finish there and, and yeah, and apologise again for my late arrival. Iain Walker 35:56 Thank you very much, Kelly. And that last point, echoes a lot of points. So just for everybody, every speaker so far today has made. I remember once flying back into Perth and the Qantas pilot on start the descent advises us all to wind our clocks back three hours and 30 years. So you're in Queensland, you're only one hour, maybe 10 years behind. Thank you very much to five speakers. Really interesting, important observations ranging from lab based work, all the way through to long term protracted engagement with key stakeholders. Eryn's been busy monitoring the chat. We've only got maybe five minutes left before I think the webmaster or webmistress will zoom us all back into the main meeting room to join the rest of the conference. So in five minutes, Eryn, curating all the, all the questions in the conversation? (I think...) You wanna throw top, most pressing question that you've noticed. Eryn Newman 37:07 Okay. Thanks for the challenge there Iain. So for those panellists who joined us today, do you want to throw your videos on so you can wave at me if you want to jump in? One of the really interesting comments I saw there, there are a bunch of interesting discussions already happening, was a comment made by Calum which is about: what about the use of stories, and then thinking about that, how that really connects with First Nations ways of thinking and sharing knowledge. So first, Janie comments about how that connects with how we think about the future, the role of stories? And then I'll throw that on to Ullie and maybe John to comment on. Janie Busby Grant 37:48 Oh, sure. Sure. Um, absolutely. It's all about us, constructing particular scenarios for ourselves, and then and then feeding that back into into our decision making. So it's about, you know, running through these potential scenarios. And then, and then making decisions about what we're going to do in the now to actually inform that. And as I was talking about, on the, on the chat briefly, there's a lot of good evidence now about how, you know, things like depression, anxiety, can actually bias how we think about the future. And so, as someone else mentioned, you can start seeing how some of these cyclical kind of effects can occur as they interact with it with the context around you. Eryn Newman 38:33 Thanks, Jenny. And Ullie? Ullrich Ecker 38:35 Yeah, regarding the use of stories in particular. So we know that people like stories, they like to think in story format, they better at remembering things in story format. So there's a lot going for stories, but one thing to be careful with is that we actually have evidence that the story format itself, at least when it comes to debunking misinformation, brings no beneficial impact just in itself. So if you have two corrections, one of which is framed as a story, and the other one gives you the exactly the same facts, just in a factual non-story, non-narrative format, the two are exactly identical in terms of their effectiveness, which is something we've replicated in three large scale experiments. So it's not necessarily always the best thing. If you have a really good correction or really good debunking that is not story like you don't have to worry about turning it into a story. Like the story can help in some circumstances, but only because it makes something very salient or very clear that you can otherwise maybe not make salient. The story itself, that factor doesn't actually translate immediately into better, better corrections. In saying that, these were studies done on, it might have been MTurker. Kelly I'm not I'm not too sure. They were done online. So whether there there might be different, different effects in different, with different populations that's a story that's something I don't know. And we, I agree with Kelly, we need to do more research and with diverse populations and in the field to really ascertain that. Eryn Newman 40:13 That's really interesting, Ullie. And it makes me think about consumption. How do you engage consumption in some ways as a story. Maybe one way to do that. Kelly and Kath on this, somebody else is going to wave really quickly wanted to throw to you both. A comment that came up in an earlier session today. We need to train scientists to communicate much better, the person said, they're a scientist, and you need to have a different language for politicians, another for your neighbour, and another for businesses. So what are some reflections on that one? You've got two minutes. Kelly Fielding 40:54 Ah, look, I mean, it's a work in progress for me. I've got a couple of colleagues who I work with, you know, talk to politicians and people that we know in government and say: How can, what can we do in order to make our research useful to you? So I think having an appetite for it and you know, seeing it as a bit of a journey where you learn because we don't really get much training, and I don't think in some disciplines may be better than others. So it's about I think having the willingness, having the appetite and just trying to learn and test stuff out is my own journey. I don't say that, that you know, I've got the recipe, though. So happy to hand over to.. Kathryn Williams 41:38 Sorry, am I audible now? Eryn Newman 41:41 You have six seconds. Iain Walker 41:43 Yes, you are. But I think we we're just about to get ordered back, but if you want to start talking until we go? Kathryn Williams 41:50 Well, I was just going to recount I mean, point back towards relationships, which is kind of expanding on what Kelly said that this is it's not just a process. It's within a relationship. Winding back to the long term research processes that I described earlier. It's important. Iain Walker 42:08 You also mentioned in your presentation, Kath, the importance of trust. That's a key variable in everything, even in short term relationships. Eryn Newman 42:20 Well, thank you very much, everyone. I think we're about to join the plenary session. Really interesting discussion at a very exciting time as we're launching the HEAL network. So thank you very much to all our speakers, and also the audience too. Ullrich Ecker 42:33 Thanks for organising, Iain and Eryn. Iain Walker 42:36 Thanks, everyone.