watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.

www.culturalcognition.net

Decision-relevant Science: Who Distrusts Whom About What and Why?

Dan M. KahanYale University

& many many others!

Research Supported by:National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -

0242106

Trust and the science communication problem

Public opinion: federal govt should fund scienceAgree or disagree?

source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.

Federal support for science research


Level of support for science researchU.S. Public Opinion

Public opinion: amount of federal funding?Too little or too much?


Federal support for science research


Level of support for science researchU.S. Public Opinion

Public opinion: amount of federal funding?Too little or too much?


How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?

happy

unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)

0

20

40

60

80

100

1983 2001 2012

perc

ent



happy


0

20

40

60

80

100

1983 2001 2012

happy

perc

ent



happy


0

20

40

60

80

100

1983 2001 2012

happy

perc

ent

(boy)(girl)

unhappy


0102030405060708090

100

Agree disagree Agree disagree

“scientists are helping to solve challenging problems”

“scientists are dedicated people who work for the good of humanity”

Are scientists public spirited?


%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

%

1. Members of the public do trust scientists.

2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other.

3. When facts become entangled in conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.



2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other

3. When facts become entangled in conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.



2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.

3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.




3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups,


Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

marijuana legalization


Individualism Communitarianism

Environment: climate, nuclear

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun ControlGays military/gay parenting

Gays military/gay parenting

Environment: climate, nuclearhierarchical communitarians

egalitarian individualists

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

egalitarian communitarians

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

cats/annoying varmints

cats/annoying varmints

hierarchical individualists

abortion protestors/war protesotrs


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk



Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control


Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

randomly assign 1 “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.”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:

American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences

“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

High Risk(science conclusive)

Low Risk(science inconclusive)

Climate Change

randomly assign 1 “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. Man-made 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

“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.

Oliver Roberts



Low Risk(safe)

High Risk(not safe)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “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. Man-made 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



“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.

Oliver Roberts



“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, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”

James Williams

Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences

High Risk(Increase crime)

Low Risk(Decrease Crime)

Concealed Carry Laws

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low RiskHigh Risk

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

ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%61%

72%

Difference in Likelihood of Agreeing Scientist is “Expert” 60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low RiskHigh Risk

Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree

Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree

Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism



Climate change

Climate change

Nuclear waste disposal


Concealed carry bans


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism



Climate change

Climate change



Perceived Scientific Consensus:Low RiskHigh Risk



Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk


HPV Vaccination


HPV Vaccination

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5

No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate

Expected AdvocateAlignment

UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment

Intramural AdvocateAlignment

Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

Pct.

Agre

e

No Argument

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment

Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment


61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





Pct.

Agre

e“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






No Argument BalancedArgument

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e


61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

Culturally Identifiable Experts

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e


61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e

No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

BalancedArgument

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e


Alignment

BalancedArgument

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e


Alignment

UnexpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

BalancedArgument

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Alignment

UnexpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

BalancedArgument

Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Pct.

Agre

e“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%








4. Prescription:





4. Prescription: To translate public trust in science into convergence on science-informed policy,





4. Prescription: To translate public trust in science into convergence on science-informed policy, protect decision-relevant science from entanglement in culturally antagonisitic meanings!


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism





Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control





HPV vaccination

HPV vaccination



0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dta p

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovi rus

HebB

none

0%2%4 %6%8%

1 0%1 2%1 4%1 6%1 8%2 0%2 2%2 4%2 6%2 8%3 0%3 2%3 4%3 6%3 8%4 0%4 2%4 4%4 6%4 8%5 0%5 2%5 4%5 6%5 8%6 0%6 2%6 4%6 6%6 8%7 0%7 2%7 4%7 6%7 8%8 0%8 2%8 4%8 6%8 8%9 0%9 2%9 4%9 6%9 8%

1 0 0%

2 0 02 2 0 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 2 00 9 2 01 0 2 01 1 2 01 2

Dtap

M MR ≥1 d o ses

P o lio vi ru s

He bB

n o ne

year

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100 %

2002 200 3 2004 2005 2006 20 07 2 008 200 9 2010 2011 201 2

Dtap

MMR ≥ 1 doses

Poliovir us

HBV ≥ 3 doses

none

HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dta p

MMR ≥1 doses

Poliovi rus

HebB

none

0%2%4 %6%8%

1 0%1 2%1 4%1 6%1 8%2 0%2 2%2 4%2 6%2 8%3 0%3 2%3 4%3 6%3 8%4 0%4 2%4 4%4 6%4 8%5 0%5 2%5 4%5 6%5 8%6 0%6 2%6 4%6 6%6 8%7 0%7 2%7 4%7 6%7 8%8 0%8 2%8 4%8 6%8 8%9 0%9 2%9 4%9 6%9 8%

1 0 0%

2 0 02 2 0 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 2 00 9 2 01 0 2 01 1 2 01 2

Dtap

M MR ≥1 d o ses

P o lio vi ru s

He bB

n o ne

year

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100 %

2002 200 3 2004 2005 2006 20 07 2 008 200 9 2010 2011 201 2

Dtap

MMR ≥ 1 doses

Poliovir us

HBV ≥ 3 doses

none

HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine

pertussis

polio

MMR

childhood (19-35 mos.) vaccination coverage

85%

90%

95%

100%

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

HBV

June 2006

Feb. 2007

Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…

June 2006

Feb. 2007


Oct. 2009

Oct. 2009

0%2%4%6%8%

10 %12%14%16%18%20 %22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36 %38%40%42 %44%46%48%50%52 %54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68 %70%72%74 %76%78%80%82%84 %86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100%

2 002 20 03 20 04 2 005 2 006 20 07 2 008 2 009 2010 2011 2 012

Dtap

MMR ≥1 doses

P oliovi rus

HebB

n one

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%

100 %

2002 2003 20 04 2005 2006 20 07 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012

D tapM MR ≥1 do ses

Po lio vir us

H ebB

no ne

year

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12 %14 %16 %18 %20 %22 %24 %26 %28%30 %32%34 %36 %38 %40 %42%44 %46 %48 %50 %52 %54 %56 %58 %60%62 %64%66 %68 %70 %72 %74%76 %78 %80 %82 %84 %86 %88 %90 %92%94 %96%98 %

100%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Dtap

MMR ≥ 1 doses

Pol iov irus

HBV ≥3 doses none


Culturally Identifiable Experts

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).

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

J. Am. Med. Ass’n 297, 1921-1923 (2007)

Oct. 2005…

Oct. 2007Oct. 2007

Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation

Documents

science researchu

science researchsource

public opinion public

national science foundation

federal funding

federal govt

federal support

divergent perceptions