Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu
papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
Cultural Cognition, Climate Change, and the
Science Communication Problem
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
Donald Braman
George Washington University
Ellen Peters
Ohio State University
John Gastil
University of Washington
Paul Slovic
University of Oregon
Geoffrey Cohen
Stanford University
Hank-Jenkins Smith
Universityof Oklahoma
Maggie Wittlin
Cultural Cognition Lab
Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette
Cultural Cognition Lab
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106
Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School
Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center
for Scholars
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
1. Two hypotheses
a.
b.
The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
The cultural cognition thesis
2. The pathology: "Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
1. Two hypotheses
a.
b.
The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
The cultural cognition thesis
2. The pathology: "Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
High Sci. litearcy/System 2
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
Greater Risk
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
actual variance
actual variance
0.00
low vs. high sci
-0.25
-0.50
low vs. high sci
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser Risk
-1.00
0.75
0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
PIT prediction
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
0.25
PIT prediction
low
30b
30b
-0.75
point 1
Science literacy
-0.75
30t
30t
high
-1.00
point 2
low
point 1
-1.00
point 1
high
30b
30b
30t
30t
Numeracy
point 2
point 2
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.
point 1
point 2
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
1. Two hypotheses
a.
b.
The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
The cultural cognition thesis
2. The pathology: "Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Abortion procedure
industry, technology
Guns/Gun Control
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
industry, technology
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Egalitarianism
Guns/Gun Control
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
-1.00
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?
1.00
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
low
high
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?”
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
1.00
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
low
low
low
low
low
high
highhigh
high
Scilit/num Scale high
low
high
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?”
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
 1. Two hypotheses
a. The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
b. The cultural cognition thesis
2. The pathology: “Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
Individual expressive rationality
Collective welfare irrationality
3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural
Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature
Nanotechnology 4, 87-91 (2009)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Hierarchy
Communitarianism
Individualism
Egalitarianism
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).
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural
Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature
Nanotechnology 4, 87-91 (2009)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Climate Change
randomly assign 1
High Risk
(science conclusive)
Low Risk
(science inconclusive)
“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.”
“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
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Education: Ph.D., Harvard University
Memberships:
 American Meteorological Society
 National Academy of Sciences


American Association of Physics
National Academy of Sciences
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes
High Risk
(not safe)
“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.
randomly assign 1
Low Risk
(safe)
“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. Manmade 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
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
Concealed Carry Laws
High Risk
(Increase crime)
Low Risk
(Decrease Crime)
“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,
James Williams
the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford
concealed handguns is at least $6.214
University
billion.”
Education: Ph.D., Yale University
Memberships:
 American Society of Criminologists
 National Academy of Sciences
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural
Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature
Nanotechnology 4, 87-91 (2009)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
Scilit/num Scale
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural
Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature
Nanotechnology 4, 87-91 (2009)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
 1. Two hypotheses
a. The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
b. The cultural cognition thesis
 2. The pathology: "Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
Individual expressive rationality
Collective welfare irrationality
3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
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.
15.
16.
Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased.
Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate.
Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
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.
15.
16.
Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased.
Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate.
Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Climate change
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Egalitarianism
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
Dismiss
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
0.60
-1.20
0.40
0.20
Credit
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.80
0.00
1.20
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
-1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
HI
0.20
EC
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution geoengineering
geoengineering
pollution
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
HI
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
EC
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Control Condition
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Anti-pollution Condition
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Geoengineering Condition
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Study dismissiveness
Dismiss 1.20
z_Study dismiss 2
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Credit -1.20
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Polarization
z_Study dismiss 2
more
2.5
polarization
2.0
1.5
less
polarization 1.0
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Anti-pollution Condition
Geoengineering Condition
Polarization
z_Study dismiss 2
more
2.5
polarization
2.0
1.5
less
polarization 1.0
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Climate Change Science and the “Science
Communication Problem”
 1. Two hypotheses
a. The public irrationality thesis ("PIT")
b. The cultural cognition thesis
 2. The pathology: "Tragedy of the risk perceptions commons”
Individual expressive rationality
Collective welfare irrationality
 3. The treatment: Two-Track Communication
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
EgalitarianCommunitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Advocate/Argument Pluralistic
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Advocate/Argument
Unexpected
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Hierarchy
Communitarianism
Individualism
Egalitarianism
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).
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
60%
56%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarch
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
61%
61%
60%
58%
56%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic
Argument
Environment
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
Individualist
HierarchHierarchical
Individualist
80%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Egalitarian Communitarian
70%
71%
Pct. Agree
70%
66%
65%
61%
61%
60%
58%
56%
54%
50%
47%
No Argument
40%
Argument without
Advocate
No Argument
No Argument
Expected Advocate
Unexpected
Intramural Advocate
Alignment
Advocate Alignment
Alignment
Argument
Balanced
Argument
Expected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Expected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Unexpected Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Unexpected
Argument/Advocate
Alignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Argument
Alignment
Pluralistic
Argument
Environment
The science communication problem
I.
Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
II. (Two) Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
III. The “Tragedy of the Risk-Perceptions Commons”
A. Individual expressive rationality
B. Collective welfare irrationality
C. A solution?
US: Relative “dismissiveness” (HI v. EC)
. hireg Zstudy_dismiss2
(controlcon geocon )(hfac ifac) (hfxg hfxc ifxg ifxc)
Model 1:
Variables in Model:
Adding
: controlcon geocon
Source
SS
df
MS
Model
Residual
.628380564
1424.37162
2
1423
.314190282
1.00096389
Total
1425
1425
1
Zstudy_dis~2
Coef.
controlcon
geocon
_cons
.027407
-.0240968
-.0005947
Std. Err.
Number of obs
F( 2, 1423)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
t
.0653458
.0643834
.045761
P>|t|
0.42
-0.37
-0.01
0.675
0.708
0.990
=
1426
=
0.31
= 0.7307
= 0.0004
= -0.0010
= 1.0005
[95% Conf. Interval]
-.1007775
-.1503933
-.0903609
.1555914
.1021998
.0891716
Model 2:
Variables in Model: controlcon geocon
Adding
: hfac ifac
Source
SS
df
MS
Model
Residual
590.304335
759.290581
4
1330
147.576084
.570895174
Total
1349.59492
1334
1.01169034
Zstudy_dis~2
Coef.
controlcon
geocon
hfac
ifac
_cons
.0363353
.008575
.5946481
.2977866
-.0184632
Std. Err.
Number of obs
F( 4, 1330)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
t
.0508986
.0503661
.0207161
.0207044
.0356726
P>|t|
0.71
0.17
28.70
14.38
-0.52
R-Square Diff. Model 2 - Model 1 = 0.437
0.475
0.865
0.000
0.000
0.605
=
=
=
=
=
=
1335
258.50
0.0000
0.4374
0.4357
.75558
[95% Conf. Interval]
-.063515
-.0902306
.5540083
.2571699
-.0884438
F(2,1330) = 516.449
.1361856
.1073807
.6352879
.3384034
.0515174
p = 0.000
Model 3:
Variables in Model: controlcon geocon hfac ifac
Adding
: hfxg hfxc ifxg ifxc
Source
SS
df
MS
Model
Residual
600.91667
748.678246
8
1326
75.1145837
.564614062
Total
1349.59492
1334
1.01169034
Zstudy_dis~2
Coef.
controlcon
geocon
hfac
ifac
hfxg
hfxc
ifxg
ifxc
_cons
.0419327
.0081998
.6985416
.3399063
-.1429355
-.161833
-.1136344
-.0047235
-.0204372
Std. Err.
.0506473
.0501113
.0357468
.0356013
.0503273
.0507357
.0503379
.0505759
.0355048
R-Square Diff. Model 3 - Model 2 = 0.008
Model
1:
2:
3:
R2
0.000
0.437
0.445
F(df)
0.314(2,1423)
258.499(4,1330)
133.037(8,1326)
p
0.731
0.000
0.000
Number of obs
F( 8, 1326)
Prob > F
R-squared
Adj R-squared
Root MSE
t
P>|t|
0.83
0.16
19.54
9.55
-2.84
-3.19
-2.26
-0.09
-0.58
0.408
0.870
0.000
0.000
0.005
0.001
0.024
0.926
0.565
F(4,1326) =
R2 change
0.437
0.008
=
=
=
=
=
=
1335
133.04
0.0000
0.4453
0.4419
.75141
[95% Conf. Interval]
-.0574248
-.0901062
.6284152
.2700653
-.2416653
-.2613641
-.212385
-.103941
-.0900888
4.699
.1412902
.1065059
.768668
.4097473
-.0442056
-.062302
-.0148838
.0944941
.0492145
p = 0.001
F(df) change
516.449(2,1330)
4.699(4,1326)
p
0.000
0.001
The science communication problem
I.
Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
II. (Two) Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
III. The “Tragedy of the Risk-Perceptions Commons”
A. Individual expressive rationality
B. Collective welfare irrationality
C. A solution?
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!