Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale
description
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. 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
RevisedFactualBelief
Confirmation Bias
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Cultural Cognition
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
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
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)
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
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
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)
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
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
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)
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)
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)
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%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
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)
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
Perc
eive
Ben
efits
> R
isks
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)
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Perc
eive
Ben
efits
> R
isks
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
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
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
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%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Fami liar wi th Nano
Figure 1
Egali tarianCommuni tarian
HierarchicalIndividualis t
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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 Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
Perc
eive
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
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%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Fami liar wi th Nano
Figure 1
Egali tarianCommuni tarian
HierarchicalIndividualis t
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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 Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
Perc
eive
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
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%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Fami liar wi th Nano
Figure 1
Egali tarianCommuni tarian
HierarchicalIndividualis t
Ben
efits
> R
isks
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
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%
No Information Information-Exposed
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
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%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
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%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Fami liar wi th Nano
Figure 1
Egali tarianCommuni tarian
HierarchicalIndividualis t
Ben
efits
> R
isks
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
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
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
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
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
ScientificConsensus
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
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
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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“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
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
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
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
ScientificConsensus
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
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
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
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
“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
-1.00
-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.
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
“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
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
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
-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)
“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
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
“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
Actual 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
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
“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
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
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
“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
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
System 1 and System 2
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
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
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
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
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Geoengineering Condition
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
-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
-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
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Communication
channel 1: content
channel 2: meaning
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
NewEvidence
Two Channel Communication Strategy
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
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
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!