Transcript Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: [email protected] papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net.

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: [email protected]
papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
Science Communication & Judicial-Neutrality
Communication Look the Same to Me!
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
Figure 2. An accepted grasp for chick sexing. (Modified from “Chick Sexing” by J.H. Lunn, 1948, American
Scientist, 36, pp. 280-87. Copyright 1948 by the American Scientist. Photograph by the University of
Minnesota Photographic Laboratory. Adapted by permission.)
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
||
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
hierarchical individualists
Guns/Gun Control
Abortion procedure
hierarchical communitarians
Gays military/gay parenting
compulsory psychiatric treatment
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
Environment: climate, nuclear
Gays military/gay parenting
egalitarian individualists
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian communitarians
HPV Vaccination
Egalitarianism
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
EgalitarianCommunitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Advocate/Argument Pluralistic
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Advocate/Argument
Unexpected
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
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).
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
61%
60%
58%
56%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic
Argument
Environment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
65%
61%
61%
60%
58%
56%
54%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic
Argument
Environment
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).
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Climate Change
Nuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate Change
Nuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
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
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
-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
||
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on
the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference
with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
Experimental Conditions
Abortion Clinic Condition
Recruitment Center Condition
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Individualism
Communitarianism
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism
90%
69%
70%
70%
Hypotheses
Egal Comm
56%
77%
%
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
50% 70%
70%
Egal70%
Comm
Egal Indivd 69%
Hier Comm
43%
56%
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
60%
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
39%ProHier Individ
32%
37%50%
% demonstrator
50%
29%
26%
39%
Hier Individ
25%
25%
37%
43%
40% 32%25%
39%
25%
16%
13%
13%
32%
25%
25%
30%
29%
8%
13%26%
25%
8%20%
13%
%
16%
8%
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military 13%
AntiAnti-military
10%
on
abortion
8%
ntiAnti-militaryabortion
rtion
Anti-military
Anti-Enjoin
Anti-military
0%
olice
liable
police
Damages vs. police
80%
70%
AntiabortionAnti-military
AntiAntimages
vs.
police
demonstrator
abortion
n police
Damages vs. police abortion
abortion clinic
Police liable
Anti-military
recruitment center
EI v. HC
Enjoin police
“Complete Polarization”
Antiabortion
abortion clinic
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
37%
Hier Individ
25%
13%
Anti-military
recruitment center
Damages vs.
ECpolice
v. HI
“Semi-polarization”
56% 43%
Egal Indivd
Egal Comm
Hier Comm
Hier Comm
Egal
Egal Comm
39%Indivd
Hier Individ
56% 37%
39%
Hier Individ
Hier Comm
Egal Indivd
32%
37%
29%50%
43%
50%
100%
100%
26%
32%
39%
Hier Individ 25%
Hier Comm
37% 25%
43%
40%
25% 32% 25%
39%
Hier Individ
16%
37%
75%
13% 25%
75% 13%
32%
25%
30%
29%
8%
13%
3%
26%
25%
25%
16%
8%
13%
20%
13%
50%
50%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military 13%
AntiAnti-military
13%
10% Antiabortion
abortion
abortion
8%
Anti-military
Anti-military
nmilitary25% Anti- abortion
25%
Anti0% Anti-militaryEnjoin
Police liable
police Anti-military
Damages vs. police
abortion
Anti- vs. police
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
oin police abortion Damages
abortion
abortion
abortion
e
Damages vs.
police
0% Enjoin police
0%
abortion clinic Police
recruitment
center abortion clinic
recruitment
abortion clinic
recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
liable
Enjoin
police center Damages
vs. police
60%
Pct. Agree
3%
EI v. HC Protestors blocked EC v. HI
100%
Protestors blocked
EI v. HC
100%
75%
75%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
Pedestrians just not want to
EI v. HC
EC v. HI
listen
Pedesterians not want to listen
Screamed in face
EC v. HI
Screamed in face
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
Police just annoyed
EI v. HC
EC v. HI
Police just annoyed
Female
Black (v. White)
Other Minority (v. white)
Age
Household income
Education
South (v. West)
Midwest (v. West)
Northeast (v. west)
Urban
Married
Parent
Republican (v. Democrat)
Independent (v. Democrat)
Conservative
Hierarchy
Individualism
Force
Justified
-0.15
(0.10)
-0.66
(0.22)
0.09
(0.16)
-0.01
(0.00)
0.03
(0.01)
-0.08
(0.03)
-0.02
(0.14)
-0.21
(0.15)
-0.33
(0.15)
0.15
(0.14)
0.27
(0.11)
-0.01
(0.12)
-0.01
(0.13)
-0.03
(0.33)
0.05
(0.05)
0.46
(0.08)
0.07
(0.09)
Dependent Variable
Lethal Risk Lethal Risk Chase Not
to Public
to Police
Worth Risk
-0.01
0.09
0.03
(0.11)
(0.10)
(0.10)
-0.45
-0.60
0.46
(0.22)
(0.22)
(0.22)
0.09
0.06
-0.03
(0.17)
(0.16)
(0.16)
0.00
0.00
0.01
(0.00)
(0.00)
(0.00)
0.06
0.02
-0.03
(0.02)
(0.01)
(0.01)
-0.05
-0.06
0.03
(0.03)
(0.03)
(0.03)
0.08
-0.10
0.08
(0.14)
(0.14)
(0.13)
0.06
-0.05
0.27
(0.15)
(0.15)
(0.14)
-0.17
-0.25
0.30
(0.16)
(0.15)
(0.15)
0.18
0.13
0.04
(0.15)
(0.14)
(0.14)
0.32
0.16
-0.22
(0.12)
(0.11)
(0.11)
0.04
0.15
-0.07
(0.13)
(0.12)
(0.12)
-0.03
-0.04
-0.31
(0.14)
(0.13)
(0.13)
0.00
0.01
-0.03
(0.33)
(0.33)
(0.31)
0.09
0.05
0.03
(0.05)
(0.04)
(0.04)
0.10
0.16
-0.39
(0.08)
(0.08)
(0.08)
0.04
0.08
-0.08
(0.09)
(0.08)
(0.08)
Harris More at
Fault
-0.08
(0.12)
-0.92
(0.22)
-0.32
(0.17)
-0.01
(0.00)
0.04
(0.02)
-0.02
(0.04)
-0.21
(0.16)
-0.20
(0.17)
-0.48
(0.17)
0.14
(0.16)
0.31
(0.13)
0.17
(0.14)
0.29
(0.16)
0.15
(0.38)
0.08
(0.05)
0.39
(0.09)
0.07
(0.10)
R2 (McKelvey/Zavoina)
.11
.06
.04
.09
.14
log likelihood
-2060.64
-1731.62
-2049.7
-2296.53
-1393.14
Prob > Chi2
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
N = 1,347. Dependent variables are indicated responses measures. Ordered log-odds (logit) coefficients. Bolded and
underlined coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05; bolded only and not underlined are significant at p ≤ .10. Parentheticals
indicate standard errors
Likelihood of agreeing with S. Ct. majority
of agreeing with S. Ct. majority
Likelihood
Deadly force warranted by lethal risk posed by driver
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 100%
100%
100%
80%
80%
80%
80%
80%80%
80%
80%
60%
60%
60%
60%
60%60%
40%
40%
40%
40%
40%40%
40%
20%
20%
20%
20%20%
20%
20%
0%
0%
0% 0%
0%
0%
60%60%
Ron
Ron
RonRon
Ron
Ron
Pat
Pat
Bernie
Linda
Pat Pat Linda
Bernie Bernie
Bernie
Linda
Linda Bernie
Bernie
Pat
Linda Linda
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Ron
Pat
Pat
Pat Pat Linda
Bernie
Bernie Bernie
Bernie
Linda
Pat
Linda Linda
LindaBernie
Derived by monte carlo simulation based on logistic regression model. CIs reflect 0.95 level of
confidence.
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on
the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference
with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
2.3
50%
47%
science communication remedies
2.0
Kernel density estimate
Argument without
Advocate
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
10
No Argument
40%
Kernel density
Kernelestimate
density estimate
No Argument
Argument
8
10
10
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Balanced
Argument
No Argument
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic
Argument
Environment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
6
10
Density
8
8
8
Kernel density estimate
2
4
0
Egalitarian Communitarian
.4
.4.5
.6
hhhihi
.9
Hperry/merck
guns
Hperry/merck
Hperry/merck big oil
big oil
.4
.5
.6
66%
kernel
= epanechnikov,
bandwidth
= 0.0099 .7
guns
lawyers
guns
lawyers hhhihi
.5.6
10
.4
8
Pct. Agree
3.0
.6
hhhihi
.771%
70%
Hperry/merck
guns
6
4
50%
.9
.8
.9
65%
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
big oil
lawyers
58%
56%
54%
2
Density
2.3
.8
big oil
lawyers
61%
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth
= 0.0099
61% bandwidth = 0.0099
kernel = epanechnikov,
60%
2.5
.7
.8
hhhihi
0
70%
.5
Kernel density
estimate
.7
.8
.9
2
0
0
6
Density
2
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists
Hierarchical
Individualist
Individualist
80%
(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)HierarchEgalitarian
Communitarian
3.3
2.8
4
6
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
4
3.5
2
Density
Density
4
6
Cultural-credibility
heuristic
Narrative framing
0
47%
No Argument
40%
Kernel density estimate
.9
Argument
without .5 Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural
.4
.6
.7
.8 Advocate
Advocate
Alignment hhhihi
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
10
2.0
Kernel density
Kernelestimate
density estimate
No Argument
Argument
10
10
Expected Advocate/Argument
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Likelihood
campaignUnexpected
finance
reformPluralistic
Expected
Balanced of supporting
No Argument
Hperry/merck
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
guns
8
Argument
big oil
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Argument
Environment
lawyers
6
10
Density
8
8
8
Kernel density estimate
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
2
Density
0
4
2
more
6
4
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
3.0 sophistication hierarch individualists
Impact of narrativespolarization
on high political
Hierarchical
Individualist
Individualist
80%
(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000) HierarchEgalitarian
Communitarian
2
8
Pct. Agree
2.8
hhhihi
0
70%
3.0
.6.7
70%
hhhihi
2.0
6
4
56%
50%
2
2.3
10
.8
U.S.
.9
Hperry/merck
guns
US
big oil
lawyers
UK
58%
54%
47%
England
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Hperry/merck
big oil
Argument/Advocate
Argument/Advocate
control
control
Alignment
Alignment
guns
lawyers
anti-pollution
anti-pollution
Argument
Environment
geoengineering
geoengineering
6
Kernel density estimate
4
2
6
Density
6
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
more
0
4
.5
2.5.4
Kernel density
estimate
.8
.9
2
.6
hhhihi
.9
Hperry/merck
2.0
guns
Hperry/merck
Hperry/merck big oil
big oil
.4
.5
.6
kernel
= epanechnikov,
bandwidth
= 0.0099 .7
guns
lawyers
guns
lawyers hhhihi
.5.6
hhhihi
8
0
10
.4.5
.6.7
hhhihi
6
4
1.5
.7
.8
Hperry/merck
guns
.8
big oil
lawyers
.8
.9
U.S.
.9
US
big oil
lawyers
UK
1.0
0
0.5
.4
geoengineering
.7
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
2
Density
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
Diff. in study_validity
8
4
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
3.0 sophistication hierarch individualists
Impact of narratives
on high political
polarization
(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)
0
0
2
2
Density
.9
65%
1.0
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
10
Density
8
8
Density
4
6
8
10
Argument
Argument
.4
anti-pollution
.8
big oil
lawyers
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural
.6
.7
.8 Advocate
AlignmenthhhihiAdvocate Alignment
Alignment
10
Argument without
.5
Advocate
Narrative
framing
Value
affirmation
control
.7
.8
Kernel density estimate
.9
less
density
estimate
0.0 Expected
Kernel
density
estimate
geoengineeringKernel
of supporting
campaign finance
reform Pluralistic
Unexpected
Balanced
No ArgumentLikelihood
polarization
.4
No Argument
anti-pollution
71%
61%
1.5
0.5
No Argument
40%
control
.7
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
0
Density
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 61%
0.0099
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
60%
2.5
.6
hhhihi
.9
Hperry/merck
2.0
guns
Hperry/merck
big
oil
Hperry/merck
big oil
.4
.5
.6
66%
kernel
= epanechnikov,
bandwidth
= 0.0099 .7
guns
lawyers
guns
lawyers hhhihi
.5.6
Diff. in study_validity
.4.5
10
.4
Egalitarian Communitarian
.4
.5
2.5
Kernel density
estimate
.8
.9
3.3
0
0
4
6
Density
4
6
3.5
2
Density
Cultural-credibility
heuristic
Narrative
framing
Value affirmation
England
.6
.7
.8
.9
less.5
0.0 hhhihi
Likelihood of supporting
campaign finance reform
polarization
Hperry/merck control
anti-pollution
controlbig oil
anti-pollution
guns
lawyers
geoengineering
geoengineering
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
4. How to study public conflict over science || how to study public conflict over neutrality :
By conjecture and refutation—not storytelling and bombast!
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
Donald Braman
George Washington University
John Gastil
University of Washington
Geoffrey Cohen
Stanford University
Paul Slovic
University of Oregon
Ellen Peters
Ohio State University
Hank Jenkins-Smith
University of Oklahoma
David Hoffman
Temple Law School
Gregory Mandel
Temple Law School
Maggie Wittlin
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Danieli Evans
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
June Carbone
Univ. Missouri-Kansas City
Michael Jones
Safra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ.
Naomi Cahn
George Washington University
Jeffrey Rachlinksi
Cornell Law School
John Byrnes
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
John Monahan
University of Virginia
www. culturalcognition.net
“I am you!”