Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. papers,etc: .
-
Upload
thomas-terry -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. papers,etc: .
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
The Science Communication Problem:One Good Explanation, Four Not so Good
Ones, and a Fitting Solution
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School
Dan M. Kahan Yale University
& many many others!
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
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
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(science conclusive)
Low Risk(science inconclusive)
Climate Change
randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
Low Risk(safe)
High Risk(not safe)
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”
James Williams
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists
National Academy of Sciences
“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”
James Williams
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists
National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(Increase crime)
Low Risk(Decrease Crime)
Concealed Carry Laws
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
iskH
igh Risk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nuc
lear
Was
te
Gun
Con
trol
Low Risk
High Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Most agree 4x Most disagree
8x
Divided
4x
Most agree 5x
Most disagree
6x Divided
2x
Most agree 2x
Most disagree
2x Divided =
=
Most agree
5x
Most disagree 4x Divided =
=
2x =
2x =
2x =
2x =
Global temperatures are increasing.
Human activity is causing global warming.
Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.
Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.
57%
“What is the position of expert scientists?”
How much more likely to believe
5x
2x =
12x
3x
6x
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
iskH
igh Risk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nuc
lear
Was
te
Gun
Con
trol
Low Risk
High Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Most agree 4x Most disagree
8x
Divided
4x
Most agree 5x
Most disagree
6x Divided
2x
Most agree 2x
Most disagree
2x Divided =
=
Most agree
5x
Most disagree 4x Divided =
=
2x =
2x =
2x =
2x =
Global temperatures are increasing.
Human activity is causing global warming.
Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.
Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.
57%
“What is the position of expert scientists?”
How much more likely to believe
5x
2x =
12x
3x
6x
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
Misinformation and the science communication problem
Economically motivated
interest groups
misinformation supplyThe standard
view: CredulousPublic
High Risk(science conclusive)
Low Risk(science inconclusive)
Climate Change
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
isk
High R
isk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Chan
ge
Nucl
ear W
aste
Gun
Con
trol
Low Risk
High Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
iskH
igh RiskN = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology
variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nuc
lear
Was
te
Gun
Con
trol
Low RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
American Meteorological Society
National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(science conclusive)
Low Risk(science inconclusive)
Climate Changeclimate change
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
Low Risk(safe)
High Risk(not safe)
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Education: Ph.D., Princeton University
Memberships:
American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
isk
High R
isk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Chan
ge
Nucl
ear W
aste
Gun
Con
trol
Low Risk
High Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
iskH
igh RiskN = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology
variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nuc
lear
Was
te
Gun
Con
trol
Low RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Low Risk(safe)
High Risk(not safe)
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes
Nuclear power
“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”
James Williams
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists
National Academy of Sciences
“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”
James Williams
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists
National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(Increase crime)
Low Risk(Decrease Crime)
Concealed Carry Laws
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
isk
High R
isk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Chan
ge
Nucl
ear W
aste
Gun
Con
trol
Low Risk
High Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low R
iskH
igh RiskN = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology
variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nuc
lear
Was
te
Gun
Con
trol
Low RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Concealed Carry
High Risk(Increase crime)
Low Risk(Decrease Crime)
Concealed Carry Laws
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Misinformation and the science communication problem
Economically motivated
interest groups
CredulousPublic
misinformation supply
Culturally Motivated
Public
OpportunisticMisinformers
demand for misinformation
The motivated-public account:
The standardview:
…
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
RD prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)
Actual variance . . .
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
Actual variance . . .
High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Cultural Variance
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
RD prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highHierarchical Individualist
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Finding # 1. Political differences in CRT are trivial
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
Democrat
Republican
No. correct
Like
lihoo
d of
ans
wer
ing
corr
ectly
Democrat
Republican
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"
Lib Dem
Con Repub
Finding # 2. Identity-protective cognition is ideologically symmetric
Lib. Dem.
Conserv. Repub.
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f p
erce
ivin
g C
RT
val
id
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Finding # 3. Identity-protective cognition increases with CRT
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"
Lib Dem Lo CRT
Con Repub Lo CRT
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"
Lib Dem Hi CRT
Con Repub Hi CRT
Lib. Dem., low CRT
Conserv. Repub., low CRT
Lib. Dem., high CRT
Conserv. Repub., high CRT
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f p
erce
ivin
g C
RT
val
id
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact
The science communication problem . . .
Misinformation and the science communication problem
Economically motivated
interest groups
CredulousPublic
misinformation supply
Culturally Motivated
Public
OpportunisticMisinformers
demand for misinformation
The motivated-public account:
The standardview:
…
Misinformation and the science communication problem
Culturally Motivated
Public
OpportunisticMisinformers
demand for misinformation…?
Culturally Motivated
Public
OpportunisticMisinformers
demand for misinformation
Strategic Behavior+ Misadventure
+ Miscalculation…
generation of antagonistic meanings
Culturally Motivated
Public
Pollution of the science communication environment
…
I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition
II. Four not so good ones …
A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)
III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between cultural meaning and scientific fact
The science communication problem . . .
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!