---
title: "Information deficit model"
chunk: 1/2
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_deficit_model"
category: "reference"
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
date_saved: "2026-05-05T04:20:00.699900+00:00"
instance: "kb-cron"
---

In studies of science communication, the information deficit model, also known as the deficit model or science literacy/knowledge deficit model, theorizes that scientific literacy can be improved with increased public engagement by the scientific community. As a result, the public may then be able to make more decisions that are science-informed. The model implies that communication should focus on improving the transfer of information from experts to non-experts.
Currently, many studies challenge the information deficit model as it ignores the cognitive, social, and affective factors that influence one's formation of attitude and judgements toward science and technology.

== Deficit model of science communication ==
The original term 'deficit model' was believed to be coined in the 1930s, and sometimes attributed to the work of Jon D. Miller, though his widely cited work on scientific literacy does not employ the term. The deficit model sees the general population as the receiver of information and scientific knowledge. The information they receive, through whatever medium, has been prearranged according to what the distributors believe to be in the public's interest. Due to the recent growth of scientific research and subsequent discoveries, the deficit model suggests that this has led to a decrease in interest surrounding certain areas of science. This may be a result of the public feeling overwhelmed with information and disengaging, as it appears too much to take in.
There are two aspects to the deficit model. The first is the idea that public uncertainty and skepticism towards modern science, including environmental issues and technology, is caused primarily by a lack of sufficient knowledge about science and related subjects. The second aspect relates to the idea that by providing adequate information to overcome this lack of knowledge, also known as a 'knowledge deficit', the general public opinion will change based on the information being reliable and accurate.
Supporters of the deficit model in science communication argue that a better-informed public would increase their support for scientific exploration and technologies. In the deficit model, scientists assume that there is a knowledge deficit that can be 'fixed' by giving the public more information: scientists often assume that "given the facts (whatever they are), the public will happily support new technologies."

=== Controversy of the deficit model ===
The deficit model of scientific understanding perceives the public to be "blank slates" where their knowledge of scientific discourse and research is almost non-existent. The knowledge deficit is then informed by a reliable, knowledgeable, and hierarchical scientific community. But the increase in new information systems, such as the Internet and their ease of accessibility, has led to a greater cumulative knowledge of scientific research and the public's understanding.
However, critics state that the deficit model can also produce an unintended cumulative advantage system: growing inequality between and within the knowledge-attitude-practice (KAP) gap of individuals and groups due to a wide variety of possible moderators. Over time, these effects can exacerbate gaps between individuals' and groups' levels of KAP. With this in mind, this can also be a good thing in terms of the members of the public that can actively increase their own knowledge base, decrease the knowledge deficit and assess the truth and validity of what mass media outlets and governments are telling them. This should enhance and increase the relationship between the passive "blank slates" of the public, with the minority of the population who hold the 'knowledge surplus'.
The deficit model, however, has been discredited by a wealth of literature that shows that simply giving more information to people does not necessarily change their views. This is in part due to people wanting to feel that they have had their say (and have been heard) in any decision-making process and people making decisions based on a host of factors. These factors include ethical, political, and religious beliefs, in addition to culture, history, and personal experience.
Put another way, people's sense of risk extends beyond the purely scientific considerations of conventional risk analysis, and the deficit model marginalizes these 'externalities'. It is now widely accepted that the best alternative to deficit model thinking is to genuinely engage with the public and take these externalities into account.

=== Examples of externalities ===
Externalities can influence one's views and behaviors towards science and technology. For example, a survey of US public in 2004 found that religiosity correlates with support of nanotechnology. Additionally, in climate communication, even though today the majority of people worldwide believe climate change is a global emergency, climate action has been impeded by other factors, such as political opposition, corruption and oil company interest.
It has been also observed that sociodemographic factors such as education and age affect individuals' use of and access to communication channels; individuals' trust in and selection of health information from the program content and their changing health behaviors (as a result of the health information) are related to both their perception of the mass communication process and to sociodemographic factors but are more strongly related to the former.
With the challenges to the deficit model in science communication in health, caution is advised with the increasing role of technology and social media, and how these may affect the legitimacy of healthcare information flows away from the healthcare professional.
Furthermore, science communicators, particularly those seeking to address unsubstantiated beliefs, to look for alternative methods of persuasion. A 2019 study, for example, showed that exposure to the stories of an individual converted from opposing to supporting genetically modified organisms led to more positive attitudes toward GMOs.