Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others Two science communication puzzles...
-
Upload
terence-gibbs -
Category
Documents
-
view
216 -
download
1
Transcript of Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others Two science communication puzzles...
Dan M. KahanYale University
& 10^3 others
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714 Annenberg Center for Public Policy Skoll Global Threats Fund
www.culturalcognition.net
Two science communication puzzles . . .
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Human caused Naturally caused No warming
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
N = 1,885. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, June 2014 (YouGov). CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means.
N = 1,737. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014. CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means. Subjects classified in relation to “Left_Right,” a continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.78).
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Human caused Naturally caused No warming
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
N = 1,885. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, June 2014 (YouGov). CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means.
> avg Left_Right< avg Left_Right
N = 1,737. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014. CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means. Subjects classified in relation to “Left_Right,” a continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.78).
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Rep. Frank Lucas (R. Okla.)
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Rep. Frank Lucas (R. Okla.)
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Oops!
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Climate-change resistant chicken!
Puzzle No. 1: Do U.S. farmers believe in climate change?
Puzzle No. 2:
Puzzle No. 2: Do people who disbelieve in evolution like science documentaries about evolution?
Puzzle No. 2: Do people who disbelieve in evolution like science documentaries about evolution?
N = 1012. Nationally representative sample From Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).
True False
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
“Natural audience hypothesis”
“Missing audience hypothesis”
Science Curiosity
?
a cool show . . .
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
YIF Clip: Origins of color vision
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA)
I am curious about the world in which we live I find it boring to hear about new ideas I would enjoy visiting a science museum at the weekend I would like to be given a science book as a present I get bored when watching science programs on TV
State of the art “Science Curiosity”/“curiosity”
“Science Curiosity Index”
1. Measures: mixed strategy
2. Psychometric properties
3. Validation . . .
Sample self-report item
Sample self-report item
Sample (self-report) behavior
Sample (self-report) behavior
Performance measure
“Science Curiosity Index”
1. Measures: mixed strategy
2. Psychometric properties
3. Validation . . .
BSCIENCE
science curiosity
“Science Curiosity Index” (SCI)
science curiosity
Read science book in last yrVisited science lecture in last yr
“Science Curiosity Index”
1. Measures: mixed strategy
2. Psychometric properties
3. Validation . . .
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
Self-report engagement
Behavioral engagement
“Ordinary Science Intelligence” Assessment (“OSI”)
OSI_1.0 OSI_2.0
“Ordinary Science Intelligence” Assessment (“OSI”)
Relia
bilit
y (1
-[1/I])
Ordinary science intelligence
2PL Item resonse theory scaling
98th percentile50th percentile 86th percentile14th percentile2nd percentile
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Ordinary Science Intellience
Eng
agem
ent
Engagement with clip: SCI vs. OSI
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
Eng
agem
ent
Ordinary Science Intellience
Engagement with clip: SCI vs. OSI
Science Curiosity Index
Engagement with clip: SCI vs. OSI
SCI
OSI
Scale percentile
Eng
agem
ent
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1st 16th 50th 84th 99th
Ordinary Science Intellience
Science Curiosity Index
bars denote 0.95 CIs
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
The “missing audience hypothesis . . . ”
En
gag
emen
t
Science Curiosity
Existing audience
“Missing audience”
SCI: group “differences” . . .
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science Curiosity Index
high religiosity
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science Curiosity Index
low religiosity
M = 0.10 (0.03) M = - 0.09 (0.03)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Abortion procedure
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
cats/stupid birds
cats/stupid birds
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Environment: climate, nuclear
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
The “missing audience”????!!!!!
Dalets are pro-science/technology
Puzzle No. 2: Do people who disbelieve in evolution like science documentaries about evolution?
N = 1012. Nationally representative sample From Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).
True False
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
SCI: group “differences” . . .
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science Curiosity Index
high religiosity
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science Curiosity Index
low religiosity
M = 0.10 (0.03) M = - 0.09 (0.03)
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
eng
agem
ent
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
Engagement: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
eng
agem
ent
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
Engagement: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
Evolution believer
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
eng
agem
ent
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Engagement: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
en
ga
ge
me
nt
-2 -1 0 1 2science interest
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Engagement: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
shaded regeions represent 0.95 confidence zones for estimated means.
Science Curiosity
Engagement deficit: Evolution “belief” vs. cultural style ...
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
e_
irt
-2 -1 0 1 2science interest
linear regression/0.95 CI
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
e_
irt
-2 -1 0 1 2science interest
linear regression/0.95 CI
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Everyone else
dalets
Enga
gem
ent I
ndex
OSI OSI
0
.25
.5
.75
1
pro
ba
bili
ty o
f re
qu
est
ing
fu
ll sh
ow
-2 -1 0 1 2science interest
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Request full show: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
pro
bab
ility
1st 16th 50th 84th 99thScience Interest (percentile)
Request full show: Evolution “believers” vs. “disbelievers”
Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Was the information “believable”?
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
Evolution believer Evolution believer
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
OSI item response profile
OSI item response profile
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
0
.25
.5
.75
1pr
obab
ility
of a
gree
ing
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
Ordinary Science Intelligence Ordinary Science IntelligenceOrdinary Science Intelligence
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
0
.25
.5
.75
1pr
obab
ility
of a
gree
ing
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
Ordinary Science Intelligence Ordinary Science Intelligence
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2Science Curiosity
“I found the information in the documentary convincing.”
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
“It seemed like the documentary supplied strong evidence of how humans acquired color vision.”
Science Curiosity Science Curiosity
Was the information “believable”?
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
0
.25
.5
.75
1pr
obab
ility
of a
gree
ing
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
Ordinary Science Intelligence Ordinary Science IntelligenceOrdinary Science Intelligence
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
0
.25
.5
.75
1
prob
abili
ty o
f agr
eein
g
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
0
.25
.5
.75
1pr
obab
ility
of a
gree
ing
-2 -1 0 1 2OSI
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Ordinary Science Intelligence Ordinary Science Intelligence
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
SCI, OSI, Evolution disbelief & engagement
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
pro
bab
ility
1st 16th 50th 84th 99thScience Interest (percentile)
Evolution believer
Evolution disbeliever
Science Curiosity (percentie)Colored bars reflect 0.95 level of confidence
Pro
b. o
f req
uest
ing
full
docu
men
tary
Puzzle No. 2: Do people who disbelieve in evolution like science documentaries about evolution?