Information deficit model

The model

The assumption that public skepticism or inaction stems purely from missing facts, and that supplying facts will convert attitudes — the formal name for “if we just explain the physics well enough, people will adopt it.”

The evidence against it

Cites the classic NSF evolution-question study: only 45% of Americans agreed humans evolved when asked plainly, but 72% agreed when the question was framed “according to the theory of evolution” — comprehension existed but was overridden by identity/values, not ignorance. Literature consensus: knowledge alone reliably fails to shift attitudes or behavior; religion, political ideology, cultural identity, and personal experience dominate over facts.

The alternative

Replacement frameworks emphasize two-way dialogue/engagement rather than one-way expert-to-public information transfer (the AAAS “mutual learning” framing).

Why it matters for this archive

Names and cites the theory of change this KB’s own Explaining radiant energy to laypeople pedagogy implicitly assumes (IR thermometers, night-sky demonstrations, physics anchors) — worth an explicit caveat that physics-explanation-as-persuasion has documented limits, and that experience/identity/community trust may matter more than clarity of explanation. See Promoting passive thermal technology.