Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others! Research...

www.culturalcognition.net

Research Supported by:

National Science Foundation, SES-0621840 & -0922714

Annenberg Public Policy Center

Dan M. Kahan

Yale University

& 10^3 others!

Forecasting Novel Technology Risk Perceptions:

Are We There Yet?

2017: ~ 30th Anniversary of the study of anticipated public reaction to nanotechnology as “novel” or “emerging” technology!

Jan. 1986 . . .

. . .May 2017


Are we there yet? . . .

1. Culture conflict: affects science but is not about science

2. Beware survey artifact

3. Beware exogenous politicization

Making it the rest of the way

1. Avoid “hyping” (or contributing to same in media)

2. Study triggering condistions with realistic stimuli

3. Investigate locally, with field-study methods

4. Prefer administrative to popular political risk-perception

management authorities

“They Saw a Protest”

Identity-protective cognition:

Identity-protective cognition:

“They Saw a Game”

Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism Communitarianism

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Representative items:Agree/disagree, 6 pt likert measure

Individualism-Communitarianism

IPROTECT.

CLIMCHOI.

Hierarchy-Egalitarianism

EWEALTH.

HFEMININ.




IPROTECT. “It's not the government's business to try to protect people from themselves.”

CLIMCHOI.


EWEALTH.

HFEMININ.





CLIMCHOI. “Government should put limits on the choices individuals can make so

they don't get in the way of what's good for society.”


EWEALTH.

HFEMININ.








EWEALTH. “Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.”

HFEMININ.








EWEALTH. “Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal.”

HFEMININ. “Society as a whole has become too soft and feminine.”


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center

Police Liable Police Enjoined

“They Saw a Protest”: Who decided what & when?P

ct. A

gre

e

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

“They Saw a Protest”: Who decided what & when?

Egal individ

Egal individ



Pct

. Agr

ee

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

“They Saw a Protest”: Who decided what & when?

Hierarch commun

Egal individ

Hierarch commun

Egal individ



Pct

. Agr

ee

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Hierarch commun

Egal individ

Hierarch commun

Egal individ



“They Saw a Protest”: Who decided what & when?P

ct. A

gre

e

Pct.

Agr

ee

Protestors blocked Screamed in face

Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center


Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Egal individ

Egal individ

Egal individ

Egal individEgal commun

Egal commun

Egal commun

Egal commun

Pct.

Agr

ee

“They Saw a Protest”: Who saw what & when?

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

marijuana legalization


Risk Perception Key

Low Risk

High Risk


Environment: climate, nuclear

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination

Gays military/gay parenting






cats/common varmints


Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design

1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

▪ Worldviews

▪ Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology

▪ Nanotechnology risks v. benefits

▪ Other risk perceptions

No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)

Sample

Measures

Experimental Manipulation

Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology

Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)


▪ Worldviews





Sample

Measures





Hierarchy

Egalitarianism



Risk Perception Key

Low Risk

High Risk



Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination







Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Risk Perception Key

Low Risk

High Risk







▪ Worldviews





Sample

Measures


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

No Information Information-Exposed

Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

Experiment Condition Experiment Condition

No Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%

Unfamiliar with Nano

Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of

Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009).

* Change across condistions with realistic stimuli significant at p < 0.05

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isk

s



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

Perc

eiv

e B

en

efi

ts>

Ris

ks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Perc

eiv

e B

en

efi

ts>

Ris

ks




▪ Worldviews





Sample

Measures



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Experimental Condition

Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks


Familiar with Nano86%

61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

Hierarchical Individualist

Egalitarian Communitarian

*

*

* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05


Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



*

*




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Experimental ConditionB

en

eif

ts >

Ris

ks



*

*




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture

Pe

rce

ive

Be

ne

fits

> R

isk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



*

*




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s


Pe

rce

ive

Be

ne

fits

> R

isk

s


▪ Worldviews





Sample

Measures



High Risk

Moderate

Risk

Slight

Risk

Almost No

Risk 1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Internet Mad Cow

Disease

Nuclear

Power

Genetically

Modified

Foods

Private Gun

Ownership

Familiar with Nanotechnology

Unfamiliar with Nanotechnology

n = 1,820 to 1,830. Risk variables are 4-pt measures of “risk to people in American Society” posed by

indicated risk. Differences between group means all significant at p ≤ .01.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



*

*




0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Bene

fits >

Risk

s


Pe

rce

ive

Be

ne

fits

> R

isk

s

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0.9%

2.2%

3.6%

5.8%

19.5%

-1.4%-0.9%-0.9%-0.5%

-2.6%

0%

-5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

5%

Inc

rea

se

in

Pre

dic

ted

Lik

eli

ho

od

of

Se

lf-

Re

po

rte

d F

am

ilia

rity

wit

h N

an

ote

ch

no

log

y

Hierarch

Egalitarian

20th 40th 60th 80th 99th

Communitarian IndividualisticPercentile

Figure S1

1st



HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design


▪ Hierarchy-egalitarianism

▪ Individualism-communitarianism

▪ 5 individual risk/benefit items

▪ Risk overall, benefit overall

▪ Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”

1. No-argument (n = 250)

2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)

3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

Sample

Cultural Worldviews

HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions

Conditions

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism




Cultural Cognition of Risk

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


Risk > Benefit

Benefit > Risk

Cultural Cognition of Risk











Sample

Cultural Worldviews


Conditions

Pct. A

gre

e“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

47%

61%

71%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/Argument

Alignment

Unexpected Advocate/Argument

Alignment

Pluralistic Advocate/Argument

Alignment

61%

58%

No Argument Balanced

Argument

Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Alignment


Alignment


Alignment

61%

58%

No Argument Balanced

Argument










Sample

Cultural Worldviews


Conditions


Culturally identifiable “public health experts”

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Alignment


Alignment


Alignment

61%

58%

No Argument Expected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

Argument

Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Alignment


Alignment


AlignmentNo Argument Expected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

61%

58%


Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



61%

58%


Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Pct.

Agr

ee


Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed



Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Egal individ

Egal individ

Egal individ


Egal commun

Egal commun

Egal commun

Pct.

Agr

ee


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ifts

> R

isks



25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

Egalitarian

Communitarian

Hierarchical

Individualist

Be

ne

fits

> R

isks


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Perc

eiv

e B

en

efi

ts>

Ris

ks



Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



61%

58%


Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Pct.

Ag

ree


Pedestrians just not want to

listen

Police just annoyed



Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Egal individ

Egal individ

Egal individ


Egal commun

Egal commun

Egal commun

Pct. A

gre

e



Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



61%

58%


Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Jan. 1986 . . .

. . .May 2017


Year

Nu

mb

er

of

pro

du

cts

Nanotechnology “Consumer Product Inventory”

Source: Vance, M.E., Kuiken, T., Vejerano, E.P., McGinnis, S.P., Hochella Jr, M.F., Rejeski, D. & Hull, M.S. Nanotechnology in the real world: Redeveloping the nanomaterial consumer products inventory. Beilstein J. Nanotech. 6, 1769 (2015).

Jan. 1986 . . .

. . .May 2017


External validity: The “survey artifact” effect:

HPV vaccine . . .

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

year0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HBV ≥3 doses

none

HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine

HBV vaccination rate (CDC, Nat’l Imm. Survey)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism



0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

year0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HBV ≥3 doses

none

Pct. A

gre


47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



61%

58%


Argument/Advocate

Alignment

Balanced

ArgumentUnexpected

Argument/Advocate

Alignment


1. Culture conflict: affects science but is not about

science







4. Prefer administrative to popular political risk-

perception management authorities

Hyping GM foods



science











science





2. Furnish social proof, not just facts





Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


Pct.

Ag

ree


Pedestrians just not want to

listen

Police just annoyed



Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch commun

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Hierarch individ

Egal individ

Egal individ

Egal individ


Egal commun

Egal commun

Egal commun

Pct. A

gre

e


Cultural Cognition Project

SE Fla. evidence-based science communication initiative

SE Florida Climate Change Political Science

Proselytizing the normality of climate science

Homeowner

climate scientistCorp. exec.

Local businessman

Affinity group members spread the word . . .



science









Affinity group members spread the word . . .



science











science







4. Prefer administrative to political risk-perception


0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HebB

none

year0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovirus

HBV ≥3 doses

none

HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine

www. culturalcognition.net

“I am you!”

Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others! Research...

Documents

Transcript of Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others! Research...