Www.culturalcognition.net The climate-science literacy measurement problem—and how to fix it Dan...
-
Upload
anissa-phillips -
Category
Documents
-
view
212 -
download
0
Transcript of Www.culturalcognition.net The climate-science literacy measurement problem—and how to fix it Dan...
www.culturalcognition.net
The climate-science literacy measurement problem—and how to fix it
Research Supported by: Annenberg Center for Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvanalia
Dan M. KahanYale University
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
What am I talking about?
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The affect heuristic
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
Affect +/-
Risk perception
* The affect heuristic
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
Affect +/-
Risk perception
* The affect heuristic
perceivedbenefit
perceivedcost
anything else
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
Affect +/-
Risk perception
* The affect heuristic
perceivedbenefit
perceivedcost
“trust”
Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N.F. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Analysis 25, 199-209 (2005)
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The cultural theory of risk* The affect heuristic
Affect +/-
Risk perception
perceivedbenefit
perceivedcost
“trust”
cultural worldview
* Interpretive community
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The cultural theory of risk* The affect heuristic
Risk perception
perceivedbenefit
perceivedcost
“trust”
cultural worldview
* Interpretive community
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change science lit.
climate change risk perception
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risk perception
happening
caused by humans
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
Affect +/-
climate change risk perception
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risks perception
climate change “everything else”
Affect +/-
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risks perception
Affect +/-
happening
caused by humans
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risks perception
Cultural worldviews happening
caused by humans
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
GWRISK: “How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?” [0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
“How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements?” [1 “Strongly disagree” to 6 “strong agree”]
Source: Kahan, D.M., Hank, J.-S., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. & Braman, D. Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658, 192-222 (2015).
[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Human caused Naturally caused No warming
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
N = 1,885. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, June 2014 (YouGov). CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means.
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
happening
caused by humans
climate change risk perception
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
happening
caused by humans
climate change risk perception
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1994 2010
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risks perception
happening
caused by humans
Affect +/-
causes skin cancer
caused by aerosols
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
climate change risks perception
happening
caused by humans
Cultural worldview
causes skin cancer
caused by aerosols
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview
* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”
* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview
* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”
* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
“Group 2”
“Group 1”
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
Essential tool: Item response theory
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
< avg religiosity
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
< avg religiosity
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]
Essential tool: Item response theory
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
How to detect it . . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
< avg religiosity
< avg religiosity
< avg religiosity
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
Essential tool: Item response theory
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
How to detect it . . . .
How to fix it . . . .
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
99th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile
Prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
resp
onse
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”
Ordinary Science Intelligence
LiberalDemocrat
ConservativeRepublican
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
What am I talking about?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or false]
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5
99th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile
Prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
resp
onse
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”
Ordinary Science Intelligence
LiberalDemocrat
ConservativeRepublican
OSI: item response functions
Report from ongoing research program . . .
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
-2-1
01
2C
lima
te s
cie
nce
lite
racy
-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension
Ord
inar
y cl
imat
e sc
ienc
e in
telli
genc
e
r = 0.32, p < 0.01
Ordinary science intelligence
1st percentile
86th percentile
14th percentile
99th percentile
50th percentile
50th percentile1st percentile 86th percentile14th percentile 99th percentile
shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OSI & OCSI: best of friends!
-2-1
01
2C
lima
te s
cie
nce
lite
racy
-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension
Ord
inar
y cl
imat
e sc
ienc
e in
telli
genc
e
r = 0.32, p < 0.01
Ordinary science intelligence
50th percentile1st percentile 86th percentile14th percentile 99th percentile
1st percentile
86th percentile
14th percentile
99th percentile
50th percentile
> avg Left_Right< avg Left_Right
-2-1
01
2C
lima
te s
cie
nce
lite
racy
-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension
shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OSI & OCSI: best of friends!
OCSI & positions on global warming
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Human caused Naturally caused No warming
Positions on global warming in “past few decades”
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
No
. co
rrec
t
Report from ongoing research program . . .
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1 0 1 2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .Unconfounding
What we know from Who we are
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
“Climate scientists believe that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.” [True or False]
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .” [True or False]
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes around the world in recent decades.” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that nuclear power generation contributes to global warming” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that here will be positive as well as negative effects from human-caused global warming.” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that globally averaged surface air temperatures were higher for the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2009) than for the last decade of the twentieth century (1990-1999) [True or false]
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves
Figures plot the predicted probability of correctly responding to the item conditional on score on OCSI scale. Black bars denote 0.95 CIs. The figures can thus be used to assess the relative difficulty of the items and the precision with which they measure differences in comprehension.
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
Report from ongoing research program . . .
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
“Climate scientists believe that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.” [True or False]
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .” [True or False]
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes around the world in recent decades.” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that nuclear power generation contributes to global warming” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that here will be positive as well as negative effects from human-caused global warming.” [True or false]
“Climate scientists believe that globally averaged surface air temperatures were higher for the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2009) than for the last decade of the twentieth century (1990-1999) [True or false]
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
0.1
.2.3
.4.5
.6.7
.8.9
1
-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
prob
abili
ty o
f cor
rect
ans
wer
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves
Figures plot the predicted probability of correctly responding to the item conditional on score on OCSI scale. Black bars denote 0.95 CIs. The figures can thus be used to assess the relative difficulty of the items and the precision with which they measure differences in comprehension.
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
Report from ongoing research program . . .
* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample
* retest best OCSI plus some rookies
* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis
* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
Report from ongoing research program . . .
* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample
* retest best OCSI plus some rookies
* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis
* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
Report from ongoing research program . . .
* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample
* retest best OCSI plus some rookies
* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis
* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
Report from ongoing research program . . .
* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample
* retest best OCSI plus some rookies
* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis
* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
Report from ongoing research program . . .
* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample
* retest best OCSI plus some rookies
* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis
* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”
What am I talking about?
The end!
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
New data: shame & critical reasoning!www.culturalcognition.net