Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu
papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
The Climate-Science Communication
Measurement Problem
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
& many others
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714
Annenberg Center for Public Policy
Skoll Global Threats Fund
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Human caused
Naturally caused
No warming
N = 1,885. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, June 2013
(YouGov). CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
“Belief” in evolution
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”
Assessment
OSI_1.0
OSI_2.0
“Ordinary Science Intelligence” Assessment
18 items
• 6 “Basic facts” (NSF Indicators, Pew)
• 3 “Theory of science” (NSF Indicators)
• 6 Numeracy (Peters et al. 2006)
• 3 Cognitive reflection (Frederick 2005)
“Ordinary Science Intelligence” Assessment
18 items
• 6 “Basic facts” (NSF Indicators, Pew)
• 3 “Theory of science” (NSF Indicators)
• 6 Numeracy (Peters et al. 2006)
• 3 Cognitive reflection (Frederick 2005)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Dimensionality (principal factor)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Factor
“Ordinary Science Intelligence” Assessment
18 items
• 6 “Basic facts” (NSF Indicators, Pew)
• 3 “Theory of science” (NSF Indicators)
• 6 Numeracy (Peters et al. 2006)
• 3 Cognitive reflection (Frederick 2005)
Dimensionality (principal factor)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Reliability (1-SE2)
7
8
2PL Item resonse theory scaling
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Factor
Ordinary science intelligence
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
11
.1
.1 .2
.2 .3
.3 .4
.4 .5
.5 .6
.6 .7
.7 .8
.8 .9
.9
.1
.1 .2
.2 .3
.3 .4
.4 .5
.5 .6
.6 .7
.7 .8
.8 .9
.9
00
00
probability of correct answer
11
“Electrons are smaller than atoms.” (True/false)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“What is the probability that the woman who tested
positive in a routine mammography has cancer?”
[conditional probability]
.1
.1 .2
.2 .3
.3 .4
.4 .5
.5 .6
.6 .7
.7 .8
.8 .9
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
00
0
probability of correct answer
.9
11
1
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“What is the probability that the woman who tested
positive in a routine mammography has cancer?”
[conditional probability]
.9
Group 1
.8
.8
.7
.6
Group 2
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.7
Group 2
Group 1
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
1
Group 1
.9
1
Group 2
.8
.6
.7
.9
.8
.7
.5
.6
.4
.5
.3
.4
.2
.3
.1
.2
0
.1
0
probability of correct answer
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
1
Group 1
.9
1
.9
.8
0
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
Group 2
.5
Group 2
.6
.6
.7
.7
.8
Group 1
0
probability of correct answer
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“What is the probability that the woman who tested
positive in a routine mammography has cancer?”
[conditional probability]
.9
.6
.7
.8
Group 1
Group 2
Group 1
00
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Group 2
0
probability of correct answer
Group 1
.1 .2
.2 .3
.3 .4
.4 .5
.5 .6
.6 .7
.7 .8
.8 .9
.9
.1
1
11
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“What is the probability that the woman who tested
positive in a routine mammography has cancer?”
[conditional probability]
1
.9
.8
.8
.7
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
Above avg.
religiosity
.5
Above avg.
religiosity
Below avg.
religiosity
.6
.6
.7
Below avg.
religiosity
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
“Ordinary Science Intelligence”: item response functions
“According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know
them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
(True/false)
.9
Below avg.
religiosity
.7
.6
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
Above avg.
religiosity
.5
Above avg.
religiosity
.8
.8
.6
.7
Below avg.
religiosity
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from
earlier species of animals.” (True/false)
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Ordinary Science Intelligence
2
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”
“Belief” in global warming
“Belief” in global warming
6
5
7
56
675
45
56747
4
3
2
564 6 23
675
12
2341
3452
< avg. Left_right> avg. Left_right
012342
12314 0
0
6
9
0
3
6
9
00
33
0
333
Very low
low
Very
Very
low
12 015 18 21 3
0015
18
21
6
666
>< avg. Left_right
99
9
999
12
12
15
15
18
18
21
21
12
12
12
15
15
15
18
18
18
21
21
21
Very high
> avg.
Left_right
Science
Comprehension
Ordinary
Science
Intelligence
high
6Science9 comprehension
12
15
18 Very 21
Science
Comprehension
33
66
99
12
12
15
15
18
18
21
21
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
1
0
02
2
1
01
12
66
3
000
30120
3
1
1230
5
453
01
7
6
3
2
6
5
2
1
5
4
1
0
0
0
4
3
< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
None at all
3
2
< avg. Left_right
0
4
3
7
5
4
6
5
7
6
7
global warming risk
Extremely high
risk
7
76
34
4563
776
6
77
“Belief” in global warming
3
6
9
0
3
6
9
Very low
12 015 18
Very high
21
3
6
9 Comprehension
12
15
Science
3
6
12
15
18
18
21
21
0
1
0
0
0
0
9
12
15
18
21
Moderate
Between low
and moderate
6
5
Very low
1
None at all
0
Low
4
Between moderate
and high
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.6
-1
Very
Liberal
Veryliberal
liberal
Liberal
Strong
StrongDemocrat
Democrat Democrat
Democrat
0
Moderate
Moderate
Independent
Independent
1
1.6
Conservative Very
Very
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Republican Strong
Strong
Republican
Republican
Republican
Left_right political orientation
N = 1,885. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response to riskperception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates responses to 7-point
party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
Moderate
Between low
and moderate
6
5
Very low
1
None at all
0
Low
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
4
Between moderate
and high
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.6
-1
Very
Liberal
Veryliberal
liberal
Liberal
Strong
StrongDemocrat
Democrat Democrat
Democrat
0
Moderate
Moderate
Independent
Independent
1
1.6
Conservative Very
Very
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
Republican Strong
Strong
Republican
Republican
Republican
Left_right political orientation
N = 1,885. Nationally representative sample, June 2013 (YouGov). Subjects “color coded” based on response to riskperception outcome variable. X-axis reflects subject score on composite scale that aggregates responses to 7-point
party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item (α = 0.82).
“Belief” in global warming
“Belief” in global warming
6
5
4
7
56
675
45
564
7
34
453
< avg. Left_right
3
> avg. Left_right
2
12
231 6 23
342
< avg. Left_right
00
33
0
3
2
1
> avg. Left_right
120
5
01
4
3
5
4
6
5
7
6
7
global warming risk
Extremely high
risk
776
6
77
“Belief” in global warming
1
0
2
1
01
04 0
None at all
3
6
9
0
3
6
9
3
000
333
Very low
low
Very
Very
low
12 015 18 21 3
6
666
>< avg. Left_right
99
9
999
12
12
15
15
18
18
21
21
12
12
12
15
15
15
18
18
18
21
21
21
Science
Comprehension
Ordinary
Intelligence
ScienceScience
comprehension
6
9 Comprehension
12
15
Science
18
Very high
Very
high
21
3
0
0
0
66
15
18
21
0
1
2
12
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
6
5
4
7
6
5
4
7
2
3
> avg. Left_right
1
2 6 3
< avg. Left_right
1
5
global warming risk
Extremely high
risk
7
“Belief” in global warming
0
0
4
0
00
3
33
Very
low
Very
low
6
66
9
99
12
12
15
15
18
18
Very high
1
2
3
Science
Comprehension
Ordinary
Intelligence
ScienceScience
comprehension
21
21
0
None at all
>< avg. Left_right
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
“Cultural cognition” thesis
“Cultural cognition” thesis
“Skin cream experiment”
“Skin cream experiment”

Two conditions
7
8
Correct interpretation of data
6
rash decreases
rash increases
3
4
5
n_numeracy
skin cream
correct
1
scatterplot: skin treatment
2
0
1
2
3
skin cream
4
5
6
7
8
numeracy
9
Numeracy score
0
1
1
0
incorrect
0
Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.
0
0
1
2
3
4
5
n_numeracy
6
7
8
9
1
Numeracy
.1
0
.05
Density
.15
.2
Sample overall
0
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
7
8
9
numeracy score at & above
which subjects can be
expected to correctly interpret
data.
“Gun ban experiment”
Four conditions
9
9
8
8
3
3
4
5
4
5
n_numeracy
n_numeracy
rash
rashdecreases
decreases
rashincreases
increases
rash
2
2
skin
treatment
skin
skin cream
cream
6
6
correct
correct
1
1
7
7
scatterplot:
scatterplot:skin
skintreatment
treatment
1
1
0 0
1 1
1
1
0
0
incorrect
incorrect
2 2
3 3
skin
skin
4 4
5
6 cream
7 7
8 8
5
6 cream
numeracy
numeracy
9 9
0
0
Numeracyscore
score
Numeracy
11
0
0
00
0 0
1 1
Gun ban
n_correct
n_correctinterpretation
interpretationofofdata
data(=1)
(=1)
correct interpretation of data (=1)
correct interpretation of data (=1)
Correctinterpretation
interpretation
data of data
Correct
ofofdata
Correct
interpretation
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
n_numeracy
n_numeracy
6 6
7 7
8 8
99
9
8
Correctinterpretation
interpretation
data of data
Correct
ofofdata
Correct
interpretation
3
4
5
n_numeracy
rashdecreases
decreases
rash
rashincreases
increases
rash
9
skin
treatment
skin cream
correct interpretation of data (=1)
correct interpretation of data (=1)
6
correct
correct
1
1
7
scatterplot:skin
skintreatment
treatment
scatterplot:
2
Correct interpretation of data
8
0
0
incorrect
incorrect
skin
cream
skin
cream
1
1 1
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
7 7
8 8
scatterplot:
numeracyskin treatment
numeracy
Numeracy
score
Numeracy
score
scatterplot:
gun
ban
scatterplot:
skin
treatment
9 9
0
2 2
3 3
4 4
5 5
n_numeracy
n_numeracy
6 6
rash decreases
rash
increases
crime
decreases
7 7
0
0
1
1
2
3
2
2
skin
4 4 5 5
6 6 cream
7
7 8
8 9
numeracy
numeracy
3
4
5
6
7
3
Numeracy
score
Numeracy
score
numeracy
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
00
incorrect
8 8
crime increases
3
1 1
4
5
n_numeracy
0
0
skin cream
0 0
0
1
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
correct interpretation of data (=1)
1
Gun ban
0
correct interpretation of data (=1)
6
correct
1 1
1
7
1
1
0 0
9
8
9
99
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)
skin cream
1
correct
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
incorrect
0
skin
treatment
0
1
scatterplot:
skin treatment
3
4
5
6
7
2
8
9
n_numeracy
gun ban
crime decreases
1
11
Numeracy
score
skin cream
crime increases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases
0
00
correct
1
skin cream
0
1
00
2
11
3
22
4
5
6
n_numeracy
3
4
5
3
4 score5 6
Numeracy
n_numeracy
7
8
rash decreases
6
7
7
8
rash increases
9
9
8
9
Correct interpretation of data
correct
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
1
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
incorrect
0
skin
treatment
0
1
scatterplot:
skin treatment
3
4
5
6
7
2
8
9
n_numeracy
gun ban
crime decreases
1
11
Numeracy
score
skin cream
crime increases
Gun ban
crime increases
0
00
crime decreases
0
1
00
2
11
3
22
4
5
6
n_numeracy
3
4
5
3
4 score5 6
Numeracy
n_numeracy
7
67
8
9
78
9
8
9
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.
Private gun ownership
Fracking
5
6
7
Global warming
7
6
6
5
5
4
7
4
avg. Left_right
<< avg.
Left_right
55
1
66
2
Extremely high
risk
77
3
7
4
Global
warming
Global
warming
1
1
5
0
0
4
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
9
7
777
2
77
77
66
66
55
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
< left_right
44
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
1
55
666
6
< avg. Left_right
33
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
3
0
0
6
9
12
15
15
18
18
Science
ScienceComprehension
comprehension
21
21
21
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
00000
Moderate
Moderate
Independent
Independent
1.6
1 1111
1.61.6
Very Conservative
Conservative
Very
Strong Republican
Strong
0
0
000
Very low
33
33
33
66
33
66
6
66
66
99
99
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
18
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
Very high
-1
-1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong
18
> avg. Left_right
1
Very
low
Very
low
99
12
12
15
3
3
0
66
9
21
21
Very high
Fracking
0
4 00
33
6
18
18
3
0000
00
3
15
15
0
0
None
Noneatatall
all
0
12
12
99
Science Comprehension
11
1
5
>< avg. Left_right
6
66
2
222 6
6 333
111
5
5
33333
2
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
22222
3
> avg. Left_right
rr == -- 0.65,
0.65, p < 0.01
11111
444
444
55
555
5
< avg. Left_right
0
4
3
33
22
66
666
6
7
77777
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
0
None at all
0
00
Very low
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
7
6
5
4
7
6
5
4
7
11
01234567
11
Private gun ownership
00
Moderate
Independent
1
2 6 3
>< avg. Left_right
The science communication problem
> avg. Left_right
-1.6
-1-1
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Global warming
Extremely high
risk
00
None at all
> avg. Left_right
3
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
1.6
2 6 3
1
3
0
33
-1
22
-1.6
2
44
0
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
3
66
99
12
12
1515
1818
2121
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.
Private gun ownership
Fracking
5
6
7
Global warming
7
6
6
5
5
4
7
4
avg. Left_right
<< avg.
Left_right
55
1
66
2
Extremely high
risk
77
3
7
4
Global
warming
Global
warming
1
1
5
0
0
4
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
9
7
777
2
77
77
66
66
55
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
< left_right
44
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
1
55
666
6
< avg. Left_right
33
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
3
0
0
6
9
12
15
15
18
18
Science
ScienceComprehension
comprehension
21
21
21
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
00000
Moderate
Moderate
Independent
Independent
1.6
1 1111
1.61.6
Very Conservative
Conservative
Very
Strong Republican
Strong
0
0
000
Very low
33
33
33
66
33
66
6
66
66
99
99
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
18
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
0
0
1
1
1
2
2
2
3
Very high
-1
-1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong
18
> avg. Left_right
1
Very
low
Very
low
99
12
12
15
3
3
0
66
9
21
21
Very high
Fracking
0
4 00
33
6
18
18
3
0000
00
3
15
15
0
0
None
Noneatatall
all
0
12
12
99
Science Comprehension
11
1
5
>< avg. Left_right
6
66
2
222 6
6 333
111
5
5
33333
2
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
22222
3
> avg. Left_right
rr == -- 0.65,
0.65, p < 0.01
11111
444
444
55
555
5
< avg. Left_right
0
4
3
33
22
66
666
6
7
77777
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
0
None at all
0
00
Very low
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
7
6
5
4
7
6
5
4
7
11
01234567
11
Private gun ownership
00
Moderate
Independent
1
2 6 3
>< avg. Left_right
The science communication problem
> avg. Left_right
-1.6
-1-1
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Global warming
Extremely high
risk
00
None at all
> avg. Left_right
3
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
1.6
2 6 3
1
3
0
33
-1
22
-1.6
2
44
0
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
0
3
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
3
66
99
12
12
1515
1818
2121
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” battery
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe that the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning
of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.” [True
or False]
0
0
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
.7
.7
.8
.8
probability of correct answer
.9
.9
1
1
“What gas do most scientists believe causes
temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” battery
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves
“Climate scientists believe that the
increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide
associated with the burning of fossil
fuels will reduce photosynthesis by
plants.” [True or False]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
0
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
-2
2
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
probability of correct answer
0
0
-.5
1.5
“Climate scientists believe that globally
averaged surface air temperatures were
higher for the first decade of the twentyfirst century (2000-2009) than for the
last decade of the twentieth century
(1990-1999) [True or false]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
-1
Ordinary climate science intellience
1
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that here will
be positive as well as negative effects
from human-caused global warming.”
[True or false]
.2
-1.5
.5
1
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
.1
-2
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
-2
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that
nuclear power generation
contributes to global warming”
[True or false]
-.5
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
0
-1.5
-1
“Climate scientists believe that
human-caused global warming has
increased the number and severity
of hurricanes around the world in
recent decades.” [True or false]
1
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
-2
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that if the
North Pole icecap melted as a result of
human-caused global warming, global
sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
“Climate scientists believe that
human-caused global warming will
result in flooding of many coastal
regions .” [True or False]
probability of correct answer
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
2
0
-1.5
0
.1
-2
probability of correct answer
“Climate scientists believe that
human-caused global warming will
increase the risk of skin cancer in
human beings.” [True or False]
1
.9
probability of correct answer
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
probability of correct answer
1
“What gas do most scientists believe
causes temperatures in the
atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
Figures plot the predicted probability of correctly responding to the item conditional on score on OCSI scale. Black bars
2
9 climate science intelligence” and global warming “beliefs”
“Ordinary
8
7
9
6
8
4
3
2
No. correct
5
7
6
59
48
37
26
1
15
0
04
3
2
1
Human caused
Naturally caused
No warming
Positions on global warming in “past few decades”
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1957. Nationally representative sample, April/May
2014 (YouGov). X-axis is continuous “Ordinary Science Intelligence” scale formed by IRT-weighted responses to NSF & Pew
0 Numeracy, and Cognitive Reflection Test items (α=0.83). CIs reflect 095 level of confidence for estimated
science literacy,
population mean.
2
1
0
-1
r = 0.32, p < 0.01
-2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Ordinary science intelligence vs. Ordinary climate science intelligence
-2
-1
0
1
science comprehension
2
Ordinary science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May
2014 (YouGov). X-axis is continuous “Ordinary Science Intelligence” scale formed by IRT-weighted responses to NSF & Pew
science literacy, Numeracy, and Cognitive Reflection Test items (α=0.83). CIs reflect 095 level of confidence for estimated
population mean.
OCSI, political outlooks, and Ordinary Science Intelligence
> avg Left_Right
-2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
-1
0
1
2
< avg Left_Right
-2
-1
0
1
sciencescience
comprehension
Ordinary
intelligence
2
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1957. Nationally representative sample, April/May
2014 (YouGov). X-axis is continuous “Ordinary Science Intelligence” scale formed by IRT-weighted responses to NSF & Pew
science literacy, Numeracy, and Cognitive Reflection Test items (α=0.83). Left_right” is continuous political outlook scale
formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 095 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
11
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
7
6
5
4
7
6
5
> avg. Left_right
2
1
3
6
5
4
4
7
3
0
None at all
2
Very low
2 6 3
Low
1
1
5
and moderate
0
= 0.07, p < 0.01 Between low
< avg. Left_right
>< avg. Left_right
0
0.65, p < 0.01
Moderate
4
Between moderate
and high
0
00
Very low
3
33
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
3
High
2
Extremely high
risk
7
Global warming
6
66
-1
9
99
12
12
0
15
15
1
18
18
Science Comprehension
Conservative
Moderate
Liberal
Democrat
Independent
Republican
21
21
1.6
Very high
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
OCSI, political outlooks, and Ordinary Science Intelligence
> avg Left_Right
-2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
-1
0
1
2
< avg Left_Right
-2
-1
0
1
sciencescience
comprehension
Ordinary
intelligence
2
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1957. Nationally representative sample, April/May
2014 (YouGov). X-axis is continuous “Ordinary Science Intelligence” scale formed by IRT-weighted responses to NSF & Pew
science literacy, Numeracy, and Cognitive Reflection Test items (α=0.83). Left_right” is continuous political outlook scale
formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 095 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
“Climate scientists believe that . . . ”—true or false?
< avg Left_Right
> avg Left_Right
Percent giving correct response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
globally averaged
surface air
temperatures
were higher for
the first decade
of the twentyfirst century
(2000-2009)
than for the last
decade of the
twentieth
century (19901999) True
human-caused
global warming
will result in
flooding of many
coastal regions
True
carbon dioxide
causes
temperatures in
the atmosphere
to rise True
nuclear power
generation
contributes to
global warming
False
there will be
positive as well
as negative
effects from
human-caused
global warming
True
human-caused
global warming
will increase the
risk of skin
cancer in human
beings False
the increase of
atmospheric
carbon dioxide
associated with
the burning of
fossil fuels will
reduce
photosynthesis
by plants False
human-caused
global warming
has increased the
number and
severity of
hurricanes
around the world
in recent decades
False
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769 Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). “Left_right” is
continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
if the north pole
icecap melted as
a result of
human-caused
global warming,
global sea levels
would rise false
“Climate scientists believe that . . . ”—true or false?
< avg Left_Right
> avg Left_Right
Percent giving correct response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
globally averaged
surface air
temperatures
were higher for
the first decade
of the twentyfirst century
(2000-2009)
than for the last
decade of the
twentieth
century (19901999) True
human-caused
global warming
will result in
flooding of many
coastal regions
True
carbon dioxide
causes
temperatures in
the atmosphere
to rise True
nuclear power
generation
contributes to
global warming
False
there will be
positive as well
as negative
effects from
human-caused
global warming
True
human-caused
global warming
will increase the
risk of skin
cancer in human
beings False
the increase of
atmospheric
carbon dioxide
associated with
the burning of
fossil fuels will
reduce
photosynthesis
by plants False
human-caused
global warming
has increased the
number and
severity of
hurricanes
around the world
in recent decades
False
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769 Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). “Left_right” is
continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
if the north pole
icecap melted as
a result of
human-caused
global warming,
global sea levels
would rise false
“Climate scientists believe that . . . ”—true or false?
< avg Left_Right
> avg Left_Right
Percent giving correct response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
globally averaged
surface air
temperatures
were higher for
the first decade
of the twentyfirst century
(2000-2009)
than for the last
decade of the
twentieth
century (19901999) True
human-caused
global warming
will result in
flooding of many
coastal regions
True
carbon dioxide
causes
temperatures in
the atmosphere
to rise True
nuclear power
generation
contributes to
global warming
False
there will be
positive as well
as negative
effects from
human-caused
global warming
True
human-caused
global warming
will increase the
risk of skin
cancer in human
beings False
the increase of
atmospheric
carbon dioxide
associated with
the burning of
fossil fuels will
reduce
photosynthesis
by plants False
human-caused
global warming
has increased the
number and
severity of
hurricanes
around the world
in recent decades
False
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769 Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). “Left_right” is
continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
if the north pole
icecap melted as
a result of
human-caused
global warming,
global sea levels
would rise false
“Climate scientists believe that . . . ”—true or false?
< avg Left_Right
> avg Left_Right
Percent giving correct response
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
globally averaged
surface air
temperatures
were higher for
the first decade
of the twentyfirst century
(2000-2009)
than for the last
decade of the
twentieth
century (19901999) True
human-caused
global warming
will result in
flooding of many
coastal regions
True
carbon dioxide
causes
temperatures in
the atmosphere
to rise True
nuclear power
generation
contributes to
global warming
False
there will be
positive as well
as negative
effects from
human-caused
global warming
True
human-caused
global warming
will increase the
risk of skin
cancer in human
beings False
the increase of
atmospheric
carbon dioxide
associated with
the burning of
fossil fuels will
reduce
photosynthesis
by plants False
human-caused
global warming
has increased the
number and
severity of
hurricanes
around the world
in recent decades
False
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769 Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). “Left_right” is
continuous political outlook scale formed by aggregating responses to 7-point party identification item and 5-point “liberal-conservative” ideology item
(α=0.78). CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for estimated population mean.
if the north pole
icecap melted as
a result of
human-caused
global warming,
global sea levels
would rise false
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe that the increase of
atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the
burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by
plants.” [True or false]
.9
.8
Conservative
Republican
Liberal
Democrat
.7
Liberal
Democrat
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
.7
.8
Conservative
Republican
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused
global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer
in human beings.” [True or false]
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe that human-caused
global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer
in human beings.” [True or false]
.9
.8
Conservative
Republican
Liberal
Democrat
.7
Liberal
Democrat
.2
.2
.3
.4
.3 .4
.5
.5
.6
.6 .7
.8
Conservative
Republican
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
.1
0
.1
Liberal
Democrat
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap
melted as a result of human-caused global warming,
global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap
melted as a result of human-caused global warming,
global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
.9
Liberal
Democrat
.8
.6
.6
.5
Conservative
Republican
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.7
.7
.8
Conservative
Republican
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Climate scientists believe thathuman-caused global
warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .”
[True or False]
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
What do “climate scientists believe ...”?
0%
0%
0%
0%
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap
melted as a result of human-caused global warming,
global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]
.9
Liberal
Democrat
.8
.6
.6
.5
Conservative
Republican
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.7
.7
.8
Conservative
Republican
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Climate scientists believe thathuman-caused global
warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .”
[True or False]
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
OCSI item response theory
“Climate scientists believe thathuman-caused global
warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .”
[True or False]
1
1
“What gas do most scientists believe causes
temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
.9
Liberal
Democrat
.8
.8
.7
.6
.5
Conservative
Republican
0
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.6
.5
.7
Conservative
Republican
0
probability of correct answer
.9
Liberal
Democrat
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
OCSI item response theory
“What gas do most scientists believe causes
temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
11
1
.1.1 .2.2 .3.3 .4.4 .5.5 .6.6 .7.7 .8.8 .9.9
.8
.9
Liberal
Democrat
Liberal
Democrat
Conservative
Republican
00
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
Conservative
Republican
0
probability of correct answer
“[Is the earth] getting warmer (a) mostly because of
human activity such as burning fossil fuels or (b) mostly
because of natural patterns in the earth’s environment?”
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Ordinary climate science intelligence
1.5
2
-2
-3
-1.5-2
-1
-1 -.5
00
.5 1
1
2 1.5
23
Ordinary climate science intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 1,769. Predicted probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic
regression. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Political outlook predictor set at -1 SD & + 1 SD on “Left_right" scale for “liberal
democrat” and “conservative Republican,” respectively. Colored bars refelct 0.95 confidence intervals.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information;
it requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
"Ordinary Science Intelligence": item response
theory
“Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier
species of animals.” (True/false)
.9
Below avg.
religiosity
.8
.8
.7
Above avg.
religiosity
.5
.6
.6
.7
Below avg.
religiosity
.5
.4
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
Above avg.
religiosity
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
"Ordinary Science Intelligence": item response
theory
“According to the theory of evolution, human beings, as we know
them today, developed from earlier species of animals.”
(True/false)
.9
Below avg.
religiosity
Above avg.
religiosity
.8
.8
.5
.7
.6
.6
.7
Below avg.
religiosity
.5
.4
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
Above avg.
religiosity
0
0
probability of correct answer
.9
1
1
“Which gas makes up most of the Earth's atmosphere?”
[Hydrogen, Nitrogen, Carbon Dioxide, Oxygen]
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
3
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Annenberg Center for Public Policy & Cultural Cognition Project. N = 2,000. Nationally representative sample, April/May 2014 (YouGov). Predicted
probabilities derived via Monte Carlo Simulation based on logistic regression. Colored bars reflect 0.95 confidence intervals.
3
Teaching evolution to “nonbelievers”
Risk and polarization: what's the denominator?
Private gun ownership
Fracking
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Global warming
-1.6
0
1
1.6
Raw Milk
None at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extremely high
risk
7
Fluoridation
0
Medical x-ray
-1
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Synthetic beef hormones
GM Foods
0
Moderate
Independent
1
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Nanotechnology
Risk and polarization: what's the denominator?
Private gun ownership
Fracking
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Global warming
-1.6
0
1
1.6
Raw Milk
None at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extremely high
risk
7
Fluoridation
0
Medical x-ray
-1
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Synthetic beef hormones
GM Foods
0
Moderate
Independent
1
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Nanotechnology
2
2 6
22
11
1
2
2 6
1
5
1
22
11
18
18
1
5
0
3
77
7
777
2
77
66
66
55
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
< left_right
44
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
1
55
666
6
< avg. Left_right
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
2
3
6
9
12
15
18
06
6
0
111
5
5
11
1
> avg. Left_right
66
12
12
99
15
15
12
12
18
18
15
15
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
0
21
21
18
18
21
21
6
66
66
18
21
15
12
18
21
15
12
9
999
12
15
21
99
12
15
18
21
-1
-1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
0000018
1 1111
1.61.6
Veryhigh
highVery
Science
Comprehension
Science
ComprehensionModerate
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
Very Conservative
Conservative
Moderate Very
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong Republican
Independent
Strong
Strong
Independent
0
0
000
Very low
33
66
33
33
33
99
66
99
6
66
66
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
18
18
18
18
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
Raw Milk
1
1
2
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
0
0
3
3
3
6
6
66
99
12
12
1515
1818
2121
9
9
0
3
66
99
12
12
12
12
1515
1818
11
111
5
5
0
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
0
4 00
21
21
18
18
15
15
15
15
> avg. Left_right
0
33
66
33
33
33
99
66
6
66
66
99
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
18
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
3
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
GM Foods
Nanotechnology
7
2
2
Synthetic beef hormones
6
5
1515
1818
2121
< avg Left_Right
4
12
12
3
99
> avg Left_Right
2
66
1
3
0
0
21
39
9
3
0
99
4 00
0000
66
0
0
44
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
33
3
0
0
0
000
Very low
21
21
Very high
Fracking
33
55
555
5
11111
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
15
15
Science Comprehension
0
22
21
3
3
222 6
6 333
18
Fluoridation
2
2
4
0
00
7
77777
66
666
6
15
12
12
1
1
66
66
55
< left_right
0
22
01234567
4
77
66
55
44
444
444
33333
12
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
9
99
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
9
6
66
< avg. Left_right
1
55
666
6
77
7
777
2
77
Medical x-ray
1
222 6
6 333
6
3
33
3
Very low
rr == -- 0.65,
< left_right
0.65, p < 0.01
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
0
00
Very low
2
2
21
>< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
0
0
18
Strong Republican
gun ownership
3
1
11
15
1
1
1.6
1
1.61.6
Very Conservative
Conservative
Very
Strong Republican
Strong
12
0
0
- 0.53
p << 0.01
9
9-1.6
21
9-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
0000
-1.6
-1
1.6
-1.6 12-1
-1 15
018
1 1111
1.61.6
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
Very Conservative
Conservative
ModerateVery high
Very
Moderate
Science
Comprehension
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong Republican
Independent
Strong
Strong
Independent
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
p < 0.01
6
66
None
atatall
None
all
0
33
0
33
33
33
000
Very low
4 00
3
33
21
21
11
1.6
1.6
Very highVery Conservative
> avg. Left_right
3
0
000
0
0
4
0
00
3
01234567
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
18
7
777
2
77
66
666
6
555
5
1
55
3
0
0
111
5
5
11111
1
1
5
None
Noneatatall
all
15
22222
22222
0
2
33333
> avg. Left_right
4
47
4
7
0
44
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
12
< avg. Left_right
33
444
444
r = - 0.65,
0.65, p < 0.01
9
18
15
12
99
-1.6
-1-1
00
-1.6
Science
ComprehensionModerate
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Independent
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
22
avg. Left_right
<< avg.
Left_right
r=-
>< avg. Left_right
ommunication problem
> avg. Left_right
11
6
66
Very low
222 6
6 333
7
77777
66
666
6
55
555
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
4
7
4
3
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
>< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Global
warming
Private
Global
warming
Fracking
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
2
2 6 3
p < 0.01
11
Global warming
Global
warming
Global
warming
p < 0.01
00
Moderate
Independent
None at all
0
3
33
00
3
-1.6
-1-1
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
01234567
0
00
None at all
0
The science communication problem
The science communication problem
Risk and
polarization: what's
the denominator?
-2.5
Very low
0
Science comprehension
2.5
Very high
2121
15
15
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Four theses on climate science communication
I.
What ordinary members of the public “believe” about climate
change doesn’t reflect what they know; it expresses who they are.
II. Ordinary members of the public already know everything they need
to about climate science; their knowledge isn't what what the
“climate change” issue is assessing.
III. Promoting constructive public engagement with climate science
doesn’t depend on communicating more scientific information; it
requires changing the meaning of the question.
IV. What needs to be communicated to ordinary decisionmakers is
normal climate science; what needs to be communicated to
ordinary people is the normality of climate science.
Cultural Cognition Project
SE Fla. evidence-based science communication initiative
Soute
“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
7
A polluted science communication environment . . .
7
67
5
6
< avg. Left_right
56
High
5
4
4
5
45
< avg. Left_right
3
7
34
Moderate
23
1
2
6
22
> avg. Left_right
2
3
Between low
and moderate
2 6 3
44
Egalitarian communitarian
r = 0.07, p < 0.01
Hierarch individualist
33
4
7
55
Between moderate
and high
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
12
Low
01
0
0
0
4
4
0
None at all
no risk
> avg. Left_right
0
Very low
1
5
11
5
1
4 SE Fla. Counties
00
None at all
7
7
6
77
Extremely high
risk
66
Extremely high
risk
6
United States as
a whole
Global
warming (summer 2013)
0
0
3
33 0
00
3
> avg. Left_right
2 < 3
4
5
1
6
66 3
6
9
9
99 6
12
129
6
12
15
1512
15
7
18
15
18
8
18
9
21
18
21
21
21
10
6
6
5
5
< avg. Left_right
4
4
4
4
7
0
0
Moderate
123 15 6 18
219
12
15
21
<18avg. Left_right
2
2
Low
> avg. Left_right
3
6 09
3
3
3
and moderate
2
0
2 6 3
r = 0.07,
< 0.01p < 0.01Between low
r = -p0.60,
6
7
7
7
6
5
2
6
1
5
1
7
p < 0.01
Liberal
Democrat
1.6
1.61.6
-1.6
-1-1
00
11
1.6
1.6
-1.6
no risk Very-1.6
Left_right Moderate
Extremely
0
1
1.6Conservative
liberal -1
Very
at all Strong
Conservative Very
DemocratLiberal
high
risk
Strong
Republican
Independent
Very liberal
Conservative
Moderate
Strong Democrat Democrat
Independent
Republican
1
1
1
5
None at all
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Strong Republican
0
0
11
Conservative
Republican
>< avg. Left_right
0
00
Moderate
Independent
0
-1
-1
1
5
> avg. Left_right
Very low
4
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
r =p-< 0.01
0.65,
r = 0.07,
Between moderate
and high
0033
9
6
3
0
00
Very low
3
None at all
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
4
11
None at all
Extremely high
risk
High
3
Very low
00
Low
0 00 1 11 2 22 3 33 4 44 5 55 6 66 7 77
4
4
Between low
and moderate
2
7
7
5
5
Moderate
22
Between moderate
and high
33
6
6
Extremely high
risk
High
7
Southeast Florida (Fall 2013)
or prosperity?”
Extremely high
risk
3
3
Extremely
-1.6
00
11
1.6
-1.6at all -1-1
1.6
noat risk
Extremely
all no risk
high risk
Very low
Comprehension Very high
“How much risk do you at
believe
fluoridated
water
poses
to
human
ScienceScience
Comprehension
Very
liberal
Very
Conservative
Moderate
all
high
risk “How much risk do you
believe
medical x-rays poses to human
Strong Democrat
Strong Republican
Independent
health, safety, or prosperity?”
“How muchone
risk. do
warming
to human health, safety,
health,
safety, poses
or prosperity?”
Global
warming
An unpolluted
. . you believe global
3366
6699
12
9912
15
15
12
12
18
18
15
15
Science
Comprehension
Science
Comprehension
21
21
18
21
18
21
Very high
11
4 SE Fla. Counties
“Landuse planners should identify assess and
revise existing laws to assure that they reflect the
risks posed by rising sea level and extreme
weather.”
“Local and state officials should be involved in
identifying steps that local communities can
take to reduce the risk posed by rising sea
levels.”
pct. agree
pct. agree
> avg. Left_right
78% agree
“Have you ever heard of the Southeast Florida
Regional Climate Compact?”
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Yes
No
What should science communicators communicate to the public?
Communicate
normality
What should science
communicators
communicate to the public?
Risk and polarization: what's the denominator?
Private gun ownership
Fracking
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Global warming
-1.6
0
1
1.6
Raw Milk
None at all
1
2
3
4
5
6
Extremely high
risk
7
Fluoridation
0
Medical x-ray
-1
-1.6
-1
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Synthetic beef hormones
GM Foods
0
Moderate
Independent
1
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
Nanotechnology
2
2 6
22
11
1
2
2 6
1
5
1
22
11
18
18
1
5
0
3
77
7
777
2
77
66
66
55
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
< left_right
44
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
1
55
666
6
< avg. Left_right
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
2
3
6
9
12
15
18
06
6
0
111
5
5
11
1
> avg. Left_right
66
12
12
99
15
15
12
12
18
18
15
15
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
0
21
21
18
18
21
21
6
66
66
18
21
15
12
18
21
15
12
9
999
12
15
21
99
12
15
18
21
-1
-1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
1.6
-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
0000018
1 1111
1.61.6
Veryhigh
highVery
Science
Comprehension
Science
ComprehensionModerate
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
Very Conservative
Conservative
Moderate Very
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong Republican
Independent
Strong
Strong
Independent
0
0
000
Very low
33
66
33
33
33
99
66
99
6
66
66
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
18
18
18
18
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
Raw Milk
1
1
2
6
9
12
15
18
21
0
0
0
3
3
3
6
6
66
99
12
12
1515
1818
2121
9
9
0
3
66
99
12
12
12
12
1515
1818
11
111
5
5
0
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
0
4 00
21
21
18
18
15
15
15
15
> avg. Left_right
0
33
66
33
33
33
99
66
6
66
66
99
9
999
99
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
15
15
18
18
15
15
15
15
15
15
21
21
18
18
18
18
18
18
21
21
21
21
21
21
Very
Veryhigh
high
3
Science
Science Comprehension
Comprehension
GM Foods
Nanotechnology
7
2
2
Synthetic beef hormones
6
5
1515
1818
2121
< avg Left_Right
4
12
12
3
99
> avg Left_Right
2
66
1
3
0
0
21
39
9
3
0
99
4 00
0000
66
0
0
44
3
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
33
3
0
0
0
000
Very low
21
21
Very high
Fracking
33
55
555
5
11111
avg.Left_right
Left_right
><><avg.
> left_right
15
15
Science Comprehension
0
22
21
3
3
222 6
6 333
18
Fluoridation
2
2
4
0
00
7
77777
66
666
6
15
12
12
1
1
66
66
55
< left_right
0
22
01234567
4
77
66
55
44
444
444
33333
12
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
9
99
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
4
47
4
7
0
44
555
5
9
6
66
< avg. Left_right
1
55
666
6
77
7
777
2
77
Medical x-ray
1
222 6
6 333
6
3
33
3
Very low
rr == -- 0.65,
< left_right
0.65, p < 0.01
avg.Left_right
Left_right
>>avg.
0
00
Very low
2
2
21
>< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
avg.Left_right
Left_right
<<avg.
0
0
18
Strong Republican
gun ownership
3
1
11
15
1
1
1.6
1
1.61.6
Very Conservative
Conservative
Very
Strong Republican
Strong
12
0
0
- 0.53
p << 0.01
9
9-1.6
21
9-1.6
-1
-1.6
-1
0000
-1.6
-1
1.6
-1.6 12-1
-1 15
018
1 1111
1.61.6
Veryliberal
liberal
Very
Very Conservative
Conservative
ModerateVery high
Very
Moderate
Science
Comprehension
StrongDemocrat
Democrat
Strong Republican
Independent
Strong
Strong
Independent
Global
warming
Global
warming
Fracking
p < 0.01
6
66
None
atatall
None
all
0
33
0
33
33
33
000
Very low
4 00
3
33
21
21
11
1.6
1.6
Very highVery Conservative
> avg. Left_right
3
0
000
0
0
4
0
00
3
01234567
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
18
7
777
2
77
66
666
6
555
5
1
55
3
0
0
111
5
5
11111
1
1
5
None
Noneatatall
all
15
22222
22222
0
2
33333
> avg. Left_right
4
47
4
7
0
44
r = - 0.53
rr == 0.07,
0.07, pp << 0.01
12
< avg. Left_right
33
444
444
r = - 0.65,
0.65, p < 0.01
9
18
15
12
99
-1.6
-1-1
00
-1.6
Science
ComprehensionModerate
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
Independent
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
22
avg. Left_right
<< avg.
Left_right
r=-
>< avg. Left_right
ommunication problem
> avg. Left_right
11
6
66
Very low
222 6
6 333
7
77777
66
666
6
55
555
5
7
6
5
7
6
5
4
7
4
3
1.6
1.6
Very Conservative
Strong Republican
>< avg. Left_right
> avg. Left_right
Global
warming
Private
Global
warming
Fracking
Extremely
Extremelyhigh
high
risk
risk
2
2 6 3
p < 0.01
11
Global warming
Global
warming
Global
warming
p < 0.01
00
Moderate
Independent
None at all
0
3
33
00
3
-1.6
-1-1
-1.6
Very liberal
Strong Democrat
01234567
0
00
None at all
0
The science communication problem
The science communication problem
Risk and
polarization: what's
the denominator?
-2.5
Very low
0
Science comprehension
2.5
Very high
2121
15
15
Katie’s “Compact connector scouting report” form
PB County Examples
•
•
•
•
•
Corporate Exec
HOA Leader
Architect
Community Organizer
COBWRA Leader
•
•
•
•
•
Construction Manager
Hotel President
Marina Director
Surf Club Leader
Investment Manager
Communicate normality
Communicate normality
Communicate normality
Communicate normality
Communicate normality
Not “us vs. them”
just us
www. culturalcognition.net
“I am you!”