Climate change offers serious challenges to the effectiveness of science, communication, and community. It demands us to look back upon what we have done in regard to science and technology. In addition, it leads us to examine human efforts invested to solve collective, shared problems by communication and community. The process of behavior per se is found to be greatly overlooked in the establishment sciences, both natural and social, and in both theory and practice. A theory of behavior is introduced and explicated as a platform to solve such commons’ problems as climate change. Finally, we find principled ways to improve effectiveness of communication and community by developing human capabilities so that we can win our battle against climate change and other potential tragedies of the commons.
BarnesB (1982) The science-technology relationship: A model and a query. Social Studies of Science12(1): 166–172.
2.
BarrettLF (2009) The future of psychology: Connecting mind to brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science4(4): 326–339.
3.
BenhabibS (1996) Toward a deliberative model of democratic legitimacy. In: BenhabibS (ed.) Democracy and Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 67–94.
4.
BlumerH (1966) The mass, the public, and public opinion. In: BerelsonBJanowitzM (eds) Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. New York: Free Press, 43–50.
5.
BordRJO’ConnorREFisherA (2000) In what sense does the public need to understand global climate change?Public Understanding of Science9: 205–218.
6.
BoykoffMT (2008) Fight semantic drift!? Mass media coverage of anthropogenic climate change. In: GoodmanMKBoykoffMTEveredKT (eds) Contentious Geographies: Environmental Knowledge, Meaning, Scale. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate, 39–57.
7.
BoykoffMTBoykoffJM (2004) Balance as bias: Global warming and the US prestige press. Global Environmental Change14: 125–136.
8.
BratmanME (1992) Shared cooperative activity. The Philosophical Review101(2): 327–341.
9.
BrinkerhoffJM (2002) Government-nonprofit partnership: A defining framework. Public Administration and Development22: 19–30.
10.
BrossardDShanahanJMcComasK (2004) Are issue-cycles culturally constructed? A comparison of French and American coverage of global climate change. Mass Communication & Society7(3): 359–377.
11.
BurnSM (1991) Social psychology and the stimulation of recycling behaviors: The block leader approach. Journal of Applied Social Psychology21(8): 611–629.
12.
CarterRF (1978) A peculiar horse race. In: BishopGFMeadowRGJackson-BeeckM (eds) The Presidential Debate: Media, Electoral, and Policy Perspectives. New York: Praeger, 3–17.
13.
CarterRF (1988) Life: The double crystal. Unpublished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
14.
CarterRF (1990) Mass communication effects: A weakness theorem. Paper presented to the Communication Theory and Methodology Division of the Association for Education in Journalism & Mass Communication convention, Minneapolis, MN. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 327901.
15.
CarterRF (1992) Cognigraphics: Taking the Measure of Ideas. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, St. Petersburg, FL.
16.
CarterRF (2003) Communication: A harder science. In: DervinBChaffeeSH (eds) Communication, a Different Kind of Horserace: Essays Honoring Richard F. Carter. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 369–376.
17.
CarterRF (2010a) art, Art, and communication. In: Foreman-WernetLDervinB (eds) Audiences and the Arts: Communication Perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 265–277.
18.
CarterRF (2010b) Behavioral foundations of effective problem solving. Available at (accessed 1 November 2010): http://bfeps.org
19.
CarterRFStammKR (1993) How we thought about the Gulf War. In: GreenbergBLGantzW (eds) Desert Storm and the Mass Media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 152–165.
20.
CarterRFStammKR (1994) The 1992 presidential campaign and debates: A cognitive view. Communication Research21: 380–395.
21.
CarterRFStammKRHeintz-KnowlesC (1992) Agenda-setting and consequentiality. Journalism Quarterly69(4): 868–877.
22.
CarvalhoA (2007) Ideological cultures and media discourses on scientific knowledge: Re-reading news on climate change. Public Understanding of Science16: 223–243.
23.
ChoJShahDVMcLeodJMMcLeodDMSchollRMGotliebMR (2009) Campaigns, reflection, and deliberation: Advancing an O-S-R-O-R model of communication effects. Communication Theory19(1): 66–68.
24.
CroweBL (1969) The tragedy of the commons revisited. Science166(3909): 1103–1107.
25.
DervinB (2010) Hidden passions, burning questions: The other side of so-called mass audiences. In: Foreman-WernetLDervinB (eds) Audiences and the Arts: Communication Perspectives. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 243–264.
26.
DeweyJ (1938) Logic: The Theory of Inquiry. New York: Henry Holt.
27.
DownsA (1972) Up and down with ecology – the “issue-attention cycle.”The Public Interest28: 38–50.
28.
DubeR (1998) Focus of attention: A behavioral perspective on media credibility. Ph.D. dissertation, School of Communications, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
29.
EmanuelK (2007) What We Know about Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
30.
EwejeGPalakshappaN (2009) Business partnerships with nonprofits: Working to solve mutual problems in New Zealand [Electronic version]. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management doi: 10.1002/csr.19210.1002/csr.192
31.
FischhoffB (2007) Nonpersuasive communication about matters of greatest urgency: Climate change. Environmental Science & Technology41(21): 7204–7208.
32.
FodorJA (1981) The mind-body problem. Scientific American244(1): 124–132.
33.
GastilJ (2008) Political Communication and Deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.
34.
GrundahlJ (1995) The Danish consensus conference model. In: JossSDurantJ (eds) Public Participation in Science: The Role of Consensus Conferences in Europe. London: Science Museum, 3–40.
35.
HabermasJ (1989) The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
36.
HabermasJ (2006) Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory16: 411–426.
37.
HagendijkRIrwinA (2006) Public deliberation and governance: Engaging with science and technology in contemporary Europe. Minerva44(2): 167–184.
38.
HardinG (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science162(3859): 1243–1248.
39.
HardinG (1998) Extensions of “The tragedy of the commons.”Science280(5364): 682–683.
40.
HookML (2006) Partnering with patients: A concept ready for action. Journal of Advanced Nursing56(2): 133–143.
41.
JohnstoneSAckersPWilkinsonA (2009) The British partnership phenomenon: A ten year review. Human Resource Management Journal19(3): 260–279.
42.
KahlorLRosenthalS (2009) If we seek, do we learn? Predicting knowledge of global warming. Science Communication30(3): 380–414.
43.
KaplanA (1964) The Conduct of Inquiry. New York: Thomas Y. Crowell Co.
44.
KimH-S (1986) Coorientation and communication. In: DervinBVoigtMJ (eds) Progress in Communication Sciences, Vol. VII. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 31–54.
45.
KimH-S (1999) The processes of public science and science communication: A new conceptual explication. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies43(3): 79–110.
46.
KimH-S (2003) A theoretical explication of collective life: Coorienting and communicating. In: DervinBChaffeeSH (eds) Communication, a Different Kind of Horserace: Essays Honoring Richard F. Carter. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press, 117–134.
47.
KimH-S (2007a) PEP/IS: A new model for communicative effectiveness of science. Science Communication28(3): 287–313.
48.
KimH-S (2007b) Science communication via engagement with a collective problem: Exploring a new science communication model, PEP/IS. Korean Journal of Journalism & Communication Studies51(4): 181–198.
49.
KimH-S (2009) Engaging: The key to Communicative Effectiveness of Science and Ideas. Paper presented to the 2nd Venice PCST colloquia on “Quality in Science Communication and Public Engagement,” Instituto Veneto di Scienze (Venice Academy of Science), Italy, 15–16 January.
50.
KimH-S (2011) Measuring PEP/IS, a new model for communicative effectiveness of science. In: BauerMWShuklaRAllumN (eds) The Culture of Science: How the Public Relates to Science across the Globe. New York: Routledge, 371–380.
51.
KimH-SCarterRFStammKR (1995) Developing a standard model of measuring the public understanding of science and technology. Journal of Science and Technology Policy7(2): 51–78.
52.
LaytonE (1971) Mirror-image twins: The communities of science and technology in 19th-century America. Technology and Culture12(4): 562–580.
LogsdonJ (1991) Interests and interdependence in the formation of social problem-solving collaborations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science27(1): 23–37.
55.
LoweTBrownKDessaiSDoriaMdeFHaynesKVincentK (2006) Does tomorrow ever come? Disaster narrative and public perceptions of climate change. Public Understanding of Science15: 435–457.
56.
MaibachEWRoser-RenoufCLeiserowitzA (2008) Communication and marketing as climate change-intervention assets: A public health perspective. American Journal of Preventive Medicine35(5): 488–500.
57.
McCombMEShawDL (1972) The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly36: 176–184.
58.
McCrightAMDunlapRE (2003) Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on U.S. climate change policy. Social Problems50(3): 348–373.
59.
McGuireWJ (1985) Attitudes and attitude change. In: LindzeyGAronsonE (eds) Handbook of Social Psychology. New York: Random House, 233–346.
60.
MohrJSpekmanR (1994) Characteristics of partnership success: Partnership attributes, communication behavior, and conflict resolution techniques. Strategic Management Journal15(2): 135–152.
61.
MoserSCDillingL (2004) Making climate hot: Communicating the urgency and challenge of global climate change. Environment46(10): 32–46.
62.
NathanMLMitroffII (1991) The use of negotiated order theory as a tool for the analysis and development of an interorganizational field. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science27(2): 163–180.
63.
NisbetMCKotcherJE (2009) A two-step flow of influence? Opinion-leader campaigns on climate change. Science Communication30(3): 328–353.
64.
OckwellDWhitmarshLO’NeillS (2009) Reorienting climate change communication for effective mitigation: Forcing people to be green or fostering grass-roots engagement?Science Communication30(3): 305–327.
65.
PewResearch Center (2010) Little change in opinions about global warming. 27October. Available at (accessed 28 March 2011): http://www.people-press.org/report/669/
66.
PielkeRAJr.ByerlyRBJr. (1998) Beyond basic and applied. Physics Today51(2): 42–46.
67.
PriceDJ (1969) The structures of publication in science and technology. In: GruberWHMarquisDG (eds) Factors in the Transfer of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 91–104.
68.
RubinAM (2002) The uses-and-gratifications perspective of media effects. In: BryantJZillmannD (eds) Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 525–548.
69.
SchmittRW (1984) National R & D policy: An industrial perspective. Science224(4654): 1206–1209.
70.
SchultzPW (1999) Changing behavior with normative feedback interventions: A field experiment on curbside recycling. Basic and Applied Social Psychology21(1): 25–36.
71.
SearleJR (1990) Collective intentions and actions. In: CohenPRMorganJPollackME (eds) Intentions in Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 401–415.
72.
SillarsA (2010) Interpersonal conflict. In: BergerCRRoloffME (eds) Handbook of Communication Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc., 273–289.
73.
SimonsDJChabrisCF (1999) Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception28: 1059–1074.
74.
SimpsonGG (1963) Biology and the nature of science. Science139(3550): 81–88.
75.
SkinnerBF (1990) Can psychology be a science of mind?American Psychologist45(11): 1206–1210.
76.
StammKRClarkFEblacasPR (2000) Mass communication and public understanding of environmental problems: The case of global warming. Public Understanding of Science9: 219–237.
77.
TrumboC (1996) Constructing climate change: Claims and frames in US news coverage of an environmental issue. Public Understanding of Science5(3): 269–283.
UngarS (1998) Bringing the issue back in: Comparing the marketability of the ozone hole and global warming. Social Problems45(4): 510–527.
80.
VoakesP (2004) A brief history of public journalism. National Civic Review93(3): 25–35.
81.
WeingartPEngelsAPansegrauP (2000) Risks of communication: Discourses on climate change in science, politics, and the mass media. Public Understanding of Science9: 261–283.
82.
WilsonEO (1978) On Human Nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83.
WilsonEO (1998) Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. New York: Knopf.
84.
ZimanJ (1998) Why must scientists become more ethically sensitive than they used to be?Science282(5395): 1813–1814.
85.
ZimanJ (2000) Real Science: What it is, and What it Means. New York: Cambridge University Press.
