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

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

Dan M. Kahan

Yale Law School

& many many others!

www.culturalcognition.net

Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0242106, -0621840 & -0922714 Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center for Scholars Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School

Cultural Cognition and the Science Communication Problem

I. A simple model: Risk and cultural polarization

II. Some evidence: (Two) mechanisms of cultural cognition

III. Climate changeA. “Scientific consensus”B. Thinking “fast” or “slow”

IV. Solution: two channel communication

The science communication problem

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence

RevisedFactualBelief

prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

Unbiased Evidence Assessment

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Confirmation Bias


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview


Cultural Cognition

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition


Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design

1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

Worldviews Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology Nanotechnology risks v. benefits Other risk perceptions

No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)

Sample

Measures

Experimental Manipulation

Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)




Sample

Measures




Climate ChangeNuclear Power


Guns/Gun Control

Risk Perception Key:Low RiskHigh Risk

Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme

Environmental Risk

Environmental Risk

Abortion

Abortion

Compulsory psychiatric treatment

Compulsory psychiatriac treatment

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism Communitarianism





Sample

Measures



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

No Information Information-Exposed

Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*

63%Unfamiliar with Nano

Familiar with Nano

Figure 1

EgalitarianCommunitarian

HierarchicalIndividualist

Ben

efits

> R

isks

Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks




Sample

Measures



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition

Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

Unfamiliar with Nano

Familiar with Nano86%

61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

Hierarchical Individualist

Egalitarian Communitarian

*

*


Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

No Infor matio n Infor mation- Exp osed

Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 00%

No Inf ormatio n Infor mation-E xpo sed

Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info. -Exposed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Fami liar wi th Nano

Figure 1

Egali tarianCommuni tarian

HierarchicalIndividualis t

Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture

Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 00%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*



Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*




Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 00%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*



Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks


Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

High Risk

ModerateRisk

SlightRisk

Almost NoRisk

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

Internet Mad CowDisease

NuclearPower

GeneticallyModifiedFoods

Private GunOwnership

Familiar with NanotechnologyUnfamiliar with Nanotechnology

n = 1,820 to 1,830. Risk variables are 4-pt measures of “risk to people in American Society” posed by indicated risk. Differences between group means all significant at p ≤ .01.

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

1 00%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*



Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks


Perc

eive

Ben

efits

> R

isks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

0.9%2.2%

3.6%

5.8%

19.5%

-1.4%-0.9%-0.9%-0.5%-2.6%

0%

-5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

5%

Incr

ease

in P

redi

cted

Lik

elih

ood

of S

elf-

Rep

orte

d Fa

mili

arity

with

Nan

otec

hnol

ogy

Hierarch

Egalitarian

20th 40th 60th 80th 99th

Communitarian IndividualisticPercentile

Figure S1

1st


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition


PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition

ScientificConsensus


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



Guns/Gun Control

Risk Perception Key:Low RiskHigh Risk

Guns/Gun Control

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism Communitarianism

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

-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%

Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response

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 ...

PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition


ScientificConsensus



Most agree 4x Most disagree

8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x

Most disagree 4x Divided =

=

2x =

2x =

2x =

2x =

Global temperatures are increasing.

Human activity is causing global warming.

Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.

Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.

57%

“What is the position of expert scientists?”How much more likely to believe

5x

2x =

12x3x

6x

The “public irrationality thesis” (PIT)

1. Science illiteracy

2. “Bounded rationality”

The “Public Irrationality Thesis”

1 + 2 + 3 =

-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



-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



-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

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



PIT prediction

Scilit/num Scalelow high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Actual variance

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

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





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



-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

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low highHierarchical Individualist

-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




Actual 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

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

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

-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





-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




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


Actual 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

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





-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


POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases



-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview

Cultural Cognition


System 1 and System 2

Communication

channel 1: content

channel 2: meaning

PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

NewEvidence

Two Channel Communication 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. 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


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Anti-pollution Condition

Geoengineering Condition

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)

Anti-pollution Condition

Communication

channel 1: content

channel 2: meaning

PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

NewEvidence



Geoengineering Condition

Communication

channel 1: content

channel 2: meaning

PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

NewEvidence



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



anti-pollution

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


more polarization

lesspolarization

Polarizationz_

Stud

y di

smiss

2

anti-pollution

Communication

channel 1: content

channel 2: meaning

PriorFactualBelief


CulturalWorldview

NewEvidence



Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale

Documents