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
The “Science Communication Problem” and Climate
Change
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication
“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
-1.00
-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 low
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & 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
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
High Sci. litearcy/System 2
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
1.00
Greater Risk
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
actual variance
actual variance
0.00
low vs. high sci
-0.25
-0.50
low vs. high sci
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser Risk
-1.00
0.75
0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
PIT prediction
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
0.25
PIT prediction
30t
low -0.75
30t
high
point 1
point 2
Science literacy
-1.00
30b
30b
-1.00
low
point 1
point 1
high
30b
30b
30t
30t
Numeracy
point 2
point 2
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Abortion procedure
industry, technology
Guns/Gun Control
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
industry, technology
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Egalitarianism
Guns/Gun Control
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance
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
-1.00
-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 low
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
1.00
Greater
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
-1.00
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
high
high low
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Greater
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
low
high
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. 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?”
Interaction of culture & sci-lit/num
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Interaction of culture & sci-lit/num
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication: two channel strategy
4. Experimental response items
A. Evidence Skepticism Module
13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science
study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the
study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10
meaning “completely convincing”?
Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements
concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree,
slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]
14.
15.
16.
Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased.
Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate.
Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Climate change
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Egalitarianism
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
Dismiss
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
0.60
-1.20
0.40
0.20
Credit
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.80
0.00
1.20
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
-1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
HI
0.20
EC
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution geoengineering
geoengineering
pollution
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
HI
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
EC
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Control Condition
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Anti-pollution Condition
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Geoengineering Condition
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Study dismissiveness
Dismiss 1.20
z_Study dismiss 2
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Credit -1.20
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Polarization
z_Study dismiss 2
more
2.5
polarization
2.0
1.5
less
polarization 1.0
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for effective communication: two channel strategy
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!