Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale
34
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: [email protected] papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net
description
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. The Science Communication Problem. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Transcript of Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: [email protected]
papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net
Dan M. KahanYale University
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714
www.culturalcognition.net
The “Science Communication Problem” and Climate Change
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
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. 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.
-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)
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
-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
High Sci. litearcy/System 2
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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.
-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
-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
Lesser Risk
Greater Risk
Science literacy Numeracylow high
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
low high
PIT prediction PIT prediction
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
actual varianceactual variance
-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
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?”
-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
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
The Science Communication Problem
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
industry, technology Abortion procedure
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
industry, technology
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
-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. 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.
Cultural Variance
-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
-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
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. 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.
Low Sci lit/numeracy
High 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
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian CommunitarianGreater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
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
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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.
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
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 highHierarchical Individualist
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
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
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. 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.
High Sci lit/numeracy
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
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Scilit/num Scalelow high
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
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
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
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. 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.
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
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
-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
Scilit/num Scalelow high
-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/numeracyHierarch Individ
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Interaction of culture & sci-lit/num
-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
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. 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.
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
Scilit/num Scalelow high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
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
The Science Communication Problem
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. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
Climate change
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
Climate change
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Control Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Anti-pollution Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Geoengineering Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
anti-pollution
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
control pollution geoengineering
more polarization
lesspolarization
Polarizationz_
Stud
y di
smiss
2
anti-pollution
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
The Science Communication Problem
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
