Transcript The science communication problem

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: [email protected]
papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
Culture, Rationality, and the Tragedy of the
Science Communications Commons
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
& many many others!
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106
Moderate
Between low
and moderate
6
5
Very low
1
None at all
0
Low
4
Between moderate
and high
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Liberal
Strong Democrat Democrat
0
Moderate
Independent
1
Conservative
Republican
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Left_right
N = 1,885. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response
to risk-perception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates
responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
Moderate
Between low
and moderate
6
5
Very low
1
None at all
0
Low
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
4
Between moderate
and high
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Liberal
Strong Democrat Democrat
0
Moderate
Independent
1
Conservative
Republican
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Left_right
N = 1,885. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response
to risk-perception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates
responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Human caused
Naturally caused
No warming
N = 1,898. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response to
risk-perception outcome variable. Y-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates responses to 7point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
The science communication problem
The science communication problem
I.
Hypotheses & evidence
II.
Tragedy of the risk perception commons
III.
A polluted science communication environment
IV.
“ ... a new political science ...”
The science communication problem
The science communication problem
Two Hypotheses:
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
•
•
“knowledge deficit”
“bounded rationality”
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high
U.S. general population
survey, N = 1,500.low
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme
risk”), M = 5.7,
-1.00
SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
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, 2, 732-35 (2012).
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
PIT prediction: knowledge deficit & Bounded Rationality
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high
U.S. general population
survey, N = 1,500.low
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme
risk”), M = 5.7,
-1.00
SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
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, 2, 732-35 (2012).
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
Greater Risk
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
PIT prediction
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.25
actual variance
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
PIT prediction
0.50
-0.50
actual variance
0.00
low vs. high sci
-0.25
low vs. high sc
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser Risk-1.00
-1.00
30t
-0.75
low
30b
30t
high
point 1
point 2
Science literacy
30b
-1.00
30t
low
30b
point 1
-1.00
point 1
30b
high
30t
Numeracy
point 2
point 2
1
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)point
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, 2, 732-35 (2012).
point 2
The science communication problem
Two Hypotheses:
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
•
•
“knowledge deficit”
“bounded rationality”
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
Moderate
Between low
and moderate
6
5
Very low
1
None at all
0
Low
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
4
Between moderate
and high
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Liberal
Strong Democrat Democrat
0
Moderate
Independent
1
Conservative
Republican
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Left_right
N = 1,885. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response
to risk-perception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates
responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
hierarchical individualists
Guns/Gun Control
Gays military/gay parenting
hierarchical
communitarians
Abortion
procedure
cats/badgers
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Abortion procedure
egalitarian individualists
cats/badgers
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian communitarians
HPV Vaccination
Egalitarianism
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Egalitarianism
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Climate Change
randomly assign 1
High Risk
(science conclusive)
Low Risk
(science inconclusive)
“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.”
“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
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
 American Meteorological Society
 National Academy of Sciences


American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes
High Risk
(not safe)
“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.
randomly assign 1
Low Risk
(safe)
“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. Manmade 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
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
Concealed Carry Laws
High Risk
(Increase crime)
Low Risk
(Decrease Crime)
“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,
James Williams
the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford
concealed handguns is at least $6.214
University
billion.”
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
 American Society of Criminologists
 National Academy of Sciences
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Egalitarian Communitarian
More Likely to Agree
Hierarchical Individualist
More Likely to Agree
Difference in Likelihood of Agreeing Scientist is “Expert”
-80%
60% 40%
-60%
-40%
20%
0
-20%
0%
20%
20%
40% 60%
40%
60%
80%
54%
Climate
Climate Change
Change
72%
Low Risk
High Risk
22%
Nuclear
Power
Nuclear Waste
31%
58%
Gun Control
n Control
61%
Low Risk
High Risk
ar Waste
Concealed
Carry
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
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Perceived Scientific Consensus:
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Egalitarianism
The science communication problem
Two Hypotheses:
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
•
•
“knowledge deficit”
“bounded rationality”
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
Individualism
Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Egalitarianism
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
Mine is bigger!
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
What is relationship
So what! of PIT & CCT
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
1.00
safety, or prosperity?”
0.75
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
0.50
PIT variance
Greater
1.00
0.00
0.75
0.75
-0.25
0.50
0.50
-0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.25
0.75
0.00
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-1.00
-0.25
0.50
-0.50
0.25
-0.75
0.00
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-0.25
Lesser -1.00
Low
low
High
-0.50
Science comprehension
CCT variance
0.25
high
-0.25
low
high
Hierarch
low low
Individualist
Egalitarian
high
Communitaran
-0.50
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.-0.75
Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95
level of confidence.
-1.00
low
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual Result
PIT Prediction
Greater 1.00
1.00
Greater
0.50
0.50
0.75
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
High
low Science comprehension high high
low
Lesser -1.00
Low
low low
Science comprehension
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.
High
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual Result
PIT Prediction
Greater 1.00
1.00
Greater
0.50
0.50
0.75
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
High
low Science comprehension high high
low
Lesser -1.00
Low
low low
Science comprehension
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.
High
high
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual Result
PIT Prediction
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
Greater 1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
High
low Science comprehension high high
low
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
Low
High
high
low low
high
Science comprehension
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.
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual Result
PIT Prediction
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
High
low Science comprehension high high
low
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
Low
High
high
low low
high
low
high
Science comprehension
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.
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
POLARIZATION INCREASES as science comprehension increases
Actual Result
PIT Prediction
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
High
low Science comprehension high high
low
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater 1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
Low Sci lit/numeracy
sample mean
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracy
mean
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Low
low low
low
low
Science comprehension
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.
High
high
high
high
high
NSF SES-922714:
Critical reasoning and the cultural
cognition of risk
The science communication problem
 I.
Hypotheses & evidence
II.
Tragedy of the risk perception commons
III.
A polluted science communication environment
IV.
“ ... a new political science ...”
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.
The science communication problem
 I.
Hypotheses & evidence
 II.
Tragedy of the risk perception commons
III.
A polluted science communication environment
IV.
“ ... a new political science ...”
The science communication problem
The science communication problem
is not normal
The science communication problem
is not normal
This is normal!
Flouridation of water
Flouridation of water
The science communication problem
is not normal
This is normal!
Flouridation of water
Flouridation of water
The science communication problem
is not normal
This is normal!
The science communication problem
is not normal
This is normal!
Medical x-rays
Medical x-rays
Nullius in verba: “take no one’s word”
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Science comprehension scores
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Individualism
Communitarianism
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Science comprehension scores
''
''
Hierarchy
-2
-1
0
1
2
-2
-1
0
1
2
SCI_COMP
SCI_COMP
Individualism
''
Communitarianism
-2
-2
-1
-1
00
11
22
-2
-1
0
SCI_COMP
SCI_COMP
Egalitarianism
1
2
Normal
Normal
Normal
Pathological
NSF SES-922714:
Critical reasoning and the cultural
cognition of risk
Normal
Pathological
Normal
Polluted science communication environment
Unpolluted science communication enviornment
Polluted science communication environment
The science communication problem
 I.
Hypotheses & evidence
 II.
Tragedy of the risk perception commons
III.
A polluted science communication environment
IV.
“ ... a new political science ...”
HPV vaccine . . .
100%86%
98%84%
96%82%
94%80%
92%78%
90%76%
88%74%
86%72%
84%70%
82%68%
80%66%
78%64%
76%62%
74%60%
72%58%
70%56%
68%54%
66%52%
64%50%
62%
48%
100%
60%98%
46%
58%96%
44%
56%94%
42%
54%92%
40%
52%90%
38%
50%88%
36%
48%86%
34%
46%84%
32%
44%82%
30%
42%80%
28%
40%78%
26%
38%76%
24%
36%74%
22%
34%72%
20%
32%70%
18%
30%68%
16%
28%66%
14%
26%64%
12%
24%62%
10%
22%60%
8%
20%58%
6%
18%56%
4%
16%54%
2%
14%52%
0%
12%
50%
2002
10%
48%
8%
46%
6%
44%
4%
42%
2%
40%
0%
38%
36% 2002
34%
32%
30%
28%
26%
24%
. . . HBV vaccine
childhood (19-35 mos.) vaccination coverage
pertussis
polio
HBV
MMR
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
year
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
GM Foods
GM Foods
GM Foods
Oct. 2005…
J. Am. Med. Ass’n 297, 1921-1923 (2007)
Oct. 2007
Oct. 2007
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Hierarchy
Communitarianism
Individualism
Egalitarianism
Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't,
and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516
(2010).
The science communication environment as
public good
“The Liberal Republic of Science . . .”
Nullius in verba: “take no one’s word”
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Science comprehension scores
''
''
Hierarchy
-2
-1
0
1
2
-2
-1
0
1
2
SCI_COMP
SCI_COMP
Individualism
''
Communitarianism
-2
-2
-1
-1
00
11
22
-2
-1
0
SCI_COMP
SCI_COMP
Egalitarianism
1
2
Unpolluted science communication enviornment
Polluted science communication environment
“The Liberal Republic of Science . . .”
“The Liberal Republic of Science . . . and Popper’s revenge”
The science communication environment as
public good
Science communication impact assessment
The science communication environment as
public good
The science communication environment as
public good
The science of science communication
“ ... a new political science for a world itself quite new ...”
“The Liberal Republic of Science . . .”
“The Liberal Republic of Science . . . freedom & knowledge”
The science communication problem
 I.
Hypotheses & evidence
II.
Tragedy of the risk perception commons
III.
A polluted science communication environment
IV.
“ ... a new political science ...”
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!