Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu
papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net
www.culturalcognition.net
Misinformation and the Science
Communication Problem
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
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
1. Misinformation doesn’t matter very much unless
citizens are culturally predisposed to accept it.
2. When citizens are predisposed to accept
misinformation, furnishing them with accurate
information won't by itself do much good.
3. The kind of misinformation to worry about is
public advocacy that invests policy-relevant
factual issues with antagonistic cultural
meanings.
I. Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
II. Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
III. Misinformation
Smart World
= steady proliferation of knowledge
New
Information
Prior
Risk
Perception
Revised
Risk
Perception
Not So Smart World
= confirmation bias
New
Information
Prior
Risk
Perception
Revised
Risk
Perception
Not So Smart & Very Disagreeable World
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Revised
Risk
Perception
Not So Smart & Very Disagreeable World
= persistent cultural polarization
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Revised
Risk
Perception
 I.
Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
II. Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
III. Misinformation
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Nuclear power
Environmental risk
Climate change
Abortion procedure
Guns/gun control
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
Nuclear power
Environmental risk
Climate change
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Egalitarianism
Guns/gun control
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
100%
100%
iliar with Nano
Hierarchical
86%*
Individualist
75%
Beneifts > Risks
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
> Risks
50%
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Hierarchical
o
Hierarchical
63%
%iar with Nano
Hierarchical
61%
61%
Individualist
86%*
Individualist
miliar
with Nano
Individualist
100%
77%
77% 75%
ano
75%
86%*
100%
75%
Beneifts > Risks
% 75%
100%
Hierarchical
100% Individualist
77%100%
100%
100% 100%
77%
100%
75%
50%Hierarchical
Individualist
86%*
86%*
86%*
Beneifts >Beneifts
Risks > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Hierarchical
Familiar
Nano
75%
63%
86%*
63%with61%
Hierarchical
100%
61%
Nano
Hierarchical
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
61%
86%*
86%*
Egalitarian
63%
Individualist
86%*
61%Individualist
Individualist
Hierarchical
with
Nano
miliar
with
Nano Communitarian
77%
86%*
77%
25%
77%
100%
Nano
no
Individualist
75% 75%
Individualist
50%
50%
100%
50%
25% 75%
50%
Communitarian
23%*
% 75%
77%
50%
75%
23%*
63%63%
61%61%
Hierarchical
Familiar
with
Nano
Hierarchical
Nano
Egalitarian
no
63%
iliar with Nano
61%
63% Communitarian
50% 50%
86%* 86%*
61%
Egalitarian
%
with Nano 25%
Individualist
61% 50%77%
Egalitarian
23%*
Individualist
0%
nfamiliar
with Nano
25%
Communitarian
Egalitarian
77%
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
75%
ed
25%
100%
75%
25%
0% 50%
Communitarian
23%*
Information
Information-Exposed
osed50% 25%No
25%
Communitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
0%
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
23%*
Info.-Exposed
23%*
23%*
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
Condition
o.-Exposed
25% Experiment
25% Communitarian
Communitarian
No
Information
Information-Exposed
mation-Exposed
No
Information
Information-Exposed
63%
on
Information-Exposed
Hierarchical
23%*
iar
with
Nano
61%
ndition
Experiment
Condition
63%
23%* 86%*
61%
iment
Condition
Experiment
Condition
0%
Egalitarian
0%
Egalitarian
Unfamiliar
with NanoNoNoInfo.
Individualist
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
nfo.-Exposed
0% with Nano
Info.-Exposed
Exposed
miliar
Information
Information-Exposed
ormation-Exposed
0%
No
Information
Information-Exposed
ion-Exposed
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
77%
ed
50%
0%
25%
Communitarian
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
Info.-Exposed
ondition
Experiment
Condition
tion
Experiment
Condition
75%
50%
0% 25%
Communitarian
No Information
NoInformation-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
sedInformation-Exposed
23%*
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
nt Condition
Experiment
Condition
Info.-Exposed
23%*
Experiment Condition
No Information
Information-Exposed
n
Information-Exposed
0% 63%
No Info.61%
Info.-Exposed
Egalitarian
ment
Condition
Experiment
Condition
-Exposed
Egalitarian
No Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
0%
miliar
with Nano No Info.
25% Info.-Exposed
Communitarian
sed
50%
25%
0%
Communitarian
ition
Experiment
Condition
*
Change
across
conditions
significant
at p < 23%*
0.05
No
Information
Information-Exposed
posed
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
nfo.
Info.-Exposed
23%*
Experiment Condition
No Information
Information-Exposed
mation
Information-Exposed
xperiment Condition
Experiment
Condition
Egalitarian
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic,
Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of
0%
25%
0%
Communitarian
Nanotechnology
Risks and
Benefits,
Nature Nanotechnology,
4(2), 87-91 (2009)
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
Info.
Info.-Exposed
No No
Info.
23%*
Information Info.-Exposed
Information-Exposed
ormation Info.-Exposed
Information-Exposed
on
Information-Exposed
Experiment
Condition
iment Condition
0%
No Information
Information-Exposed
Experiment
Condition
Experiment Condition
100%
iliar with Nano
77%100%
100%
75%
Beneifts > Risks
100%
Hierarchical
Individualist
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
ano
Beneifts > Risks
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
> Risks
Hierarchical
Hierarchical
63%
61%
Individualist
Individualist
miliar
with Nano
77%
100%77%
75%
75%
75%
50%100%
oiar with Nano
Hierarchical
Individualist
86%*
86%*
86%*
86%*
mation
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Hierarchical
Familiar
63%
86%*
63%with Nano
Hierarchical
100%
61%
Nano
Hierarchical
61%
86%*
86%*
Egalitarian
Individualist
63%
Individualist
61%Individualist
Hierarchical
with
Nano
miliar
with
Nano
77%
86%*
77%
100%
no77%
Nano
75% 75%
50%
100%
50%
25% 75% Individualist
Communitarian
50%
77%
50%
75%
23%*
63%63%
61%61%
Hierarchical
Familiar
with
Nano
Hierarchical
Nano
no
63%
iliar with Nano
Egalitarian
61%
63% Communitarian
50% 50%
86%* 86%*
61%
with Nano 25%
Individualist
Egalitarian
50%77%
23%*
Individualist
nfamiliar with Nano
Egalitarian
77% 25%
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
75%
25%
75%
0% 50%
Communitarian
Communitarian
25% 25%
Communitarian
Egalitarian
0%
No Info. Info.-Exposed
Info.-Exposed
23%*
Info.-Exposed
23%*
23%*
25%
No Info.
o.-Exposed
25% Communitarian
Communitarian
No
Information
Information-Exposed
63%
No
Information
Information-Exposed
on
Information-Exposed
mation-Exposed
61%
63%
23%* 23%*
ndition
Experiment
Condition
61%
iment
Condition
Experiment
Condition
0%
0%
Egalitarian
Unfamiliar
with NanoNoNoInfo.
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
nfo.-Exposed
Info.-Exposed
Exposed
miliar
with
Nano
Information
Information-Exposed
ormation-Exposed
0%
No
Information
Information-Exposed
ion-Exposed
50%
0%
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
Info.-Exposed
ondition
Experiment
Condition
tion
Experiment
Condition
50%
0% 25%
Communitarian
No Information
Information-Exposed
Information-Exposed
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
nt Condition
Experiment
Condition
Info.-Exposed
23%*
No Information
Information-Exposed
n
Information-Exposed
0%
No Info. Experiment
Info.-Exposed
Egalitarian
ment
Condition
Condition
-Exposed
Egalitarian
No Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
25%
Communitarian
25%
0%
Communitarian
ition
Experiment
Condition
*
Change
across
significant
at p < 0.05
Noconditions
Info.
Info.-Exposed
nfo.
Info.-Exposed
23%* 23%*
100% 100%
77%
75%
Information-Exposed
xperiment Condition
No Information
Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of
0%
0% Risks
Nanotechnology
and Benefits,
Nature Nanotechnology,
4(2), 87-91 (2009)
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
Info. Info.-Exposed
Info.-Exposed
No No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
ormation
Information-Exposed
No Information
Information-Exposed
on
Information-Exposed
Experiment
Condition
Experiment
Condition
iment Condition
Experiment Condition
iar with Nano
77% 75%
75%
63%
miliar with Nano
n
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
> Risks
100%
100%
86%*
61%
50%
50%
25%
25%
Info.-Exposed
0%
0%
Information-Exposed
ment Condition
Hierarchical
Individualist
Egalitarian
Communitarian
No Info.
No Information
23%*
Info.-Exposed
Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of
Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design
Sample
1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Measures




Worldviews
Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology
Nanotechnology risks v. benefits
Other risk perceptions
Experimental Manipulation
No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)
Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology
Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
>Beneifts
Risks
>Beneifts
Risks > Risks
61%
85%
Familiar with Nano
Information
effect:
familiarity
Unfamiliar
with Nano
100%
75%
50%
61%
85%
Familiar with Nano
Unfamiliar with Nano
75%
25%
50%
61%
100%
Risks > Risks
Beneifts >Beneifts
Risks >Beneifts
77%
100%
75%
100%
75%
63%
77%
100%
75%
50%
63%
Hierarchical Individualist
*
61%
Information effect: culture
Hierarchical Individualist
*
61%
86%
77%25%
75%
50%
63%
86%
23% *
61%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Unfamiliar with Nano
Hierarchical
86%* 23% *
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
Individualist
77% No75%
No Information
Information-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
100%
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Experimental Condition
Experimental Condition
63%
61%
Hierarchical
o
*
Change
across
conditions
significant
at p 25%
<0%
0.05
86%* 23% *
25%
0%
no
Individualist
77% No50%
No Information
Information-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
75%
100%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Experimental Condition
Experimental Condition
Egalitarian
63%
61%
Hierarchical
o
across conditions significant
at p <0%
0.05
86%*
25%
Communitarian
no 0% * Change
Source:
Kahan
,
Braman,
Slovic,
Gastil
&
Cohen
Cultural
Cognition
of
Individualist
23%*
50%
77%
No Information 4(2), 87-91
Information-Exposed
No75%
Information Risks Information-Exposed
Nanotechnology
and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology,
(2009)
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
o
Experimental Condition
Experimental Condition
Egalitarian
63%
61%
0%
* Change
across conditions significant
at p < 0.05
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
-Exposed
no
25%
Communitarian
Source:
Kahan
,
Braman,
Slovic,
Gastil
& Cohen Cultural
Cognition of 23%*
No
Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
50%
ition
Experiment
Condition
Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Egalitarian
0%
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
-Exposed
Communitarian
25%
Source: Kahan , Braman,
Gastil & Cohen Cultural
Cognition of 23%*
No Slovic,
Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
ition
Condition
Nanotechnology Risks andExperiment
Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology,
4(2), 87-91 (2009)
-Exposed
0%
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
Beneifts > Risks
61%
85%
Information
effect:
Unfamiliar
withfamiliarity
Nano
100%
75%
50%
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
>Beneifts
Risks
> Risks
Familiar with Nano
61%
85%
75%
50%
25%
Beneifts >Beneifts
Risks >Beneifts
Risks > Risks
77%
100%
75%
100%
75%
63%
77%
100%
75%
50%
Familiar with Nano
63%
Unfamiliar with Nano
77%75%
50%
25%
61%
100%
63%
Hierarchical Individualist
*
61%
Information effect: culture
86%
Hierarchical Individualist
*
61%
86%
23% *
61%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Beneifts > Risks
Unfamiliar with NanoHierarchical
no 25%
86%*23% *
25%
50%
50%
0%
0%
Individualist
77% No75%
No Information
Information-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
100%
Egalitarian Communitarian
Experimental Condition
Experimental Condition
63%
61%
Hierarchical
o
<0%
0.05
86%*23% *
0% * Change across conditions significant at p25%
ano25%
Individualist
50%
77% No75%
No Information
Information-Exposed
Information
Information-Exposed
100%
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Experimental
Condition
Experimental Condition
63%
Egalitarian
61%
Hierarchical
o
across conditions
significant
at p <0%
0.05
86%*
no 0% * Change
25%
Communitarian
Source:
Kahan
,
Braman,
Slovic,
Gastil
&
Cohen
Cultural
Cognition
of
Individualist
50%
23%*
77%Nanotechnology
No Information 4(2), 87-91
Information-Exposed
No75%
Information RisksInformation-Exposed
and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology,
(2009)
Experimental Condition
Experimental Condition
Egalitarian
63%
61%
0%
* Change
across conditions significant
at p < 0.05
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
.-Exposed
25%
Communitarian
no
Source:
Kahan
,
Braman,
Slovic,
Gastil
& Cohen Cultural
Cognition of 23%*
No
Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
50%
dition Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits,
Experiment
Condition
Nature Nanotechnology,
4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Egalitarian
Egalitarian
0%
No
Info.
Info.-Exposed
-Exposed
Communitarian
25%
Source:
Kahan , Braman,
Gastil & Cohen Cultural
Cognition of 23%*
NoSlovic,
Information
Information-Exposed
ation-Exposed
dition
Condition
Nanotechnology Risks and Experiment
Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology,
4(2), 87-91 (2009)
-Exposed
0%
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
Information effect: culture
Information effect: familiarity
100%
100%
o
*
86%
63%
61%
Unfamiliar with Nano
50%
Beneifts > Risks
77%75%
75%
25%
61%
50%
23% *
25%
Egalitarian Communitarian
100%
0%
77% No75%
Information
Beneifts > Risks
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
> Risks
85%
Hierarchical Individualist
Familiar with Nano
Hierarchical
0%
Individualist
No Information
Information-Exposed
Experimental Condition
63%
61%
* Change across conditions
significant at p < 0.05
no
86%*
Information-Exposed
Experimental Condition
50%
Egalitarian
Communitarian
25%
Source:
Kahan , Braman, Slovic,
Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of 23%*
Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
-Exposed
0%
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
4.00
High Risk
Familiar with Nanotechnology
Unfamiliar with Nanotechnology
Moderate
3.00
Risk
Slight
Risk
2.00
Almost No
Risk 1.00
Internet
Mad Cow
Disease
Nuclear
Power
Genetically Private Gun
Modified
Ownership
Foods
n = 1,820 to 1,830. Risk variables are 4-pt measures of “risk to people in American Society” posed by
indicated risk. Differences between group means all significant at p ≤ .01.
Information effect: culture
Information effect: familiarity
100%
100%
o
*
86%
63%
61%
Unfamiliar with Nano
50%
Beneifts > Risks
77%75%
75%
25%
61%
50%
23% *
25%
Egalitarian Communitarian
100%
0%
77% No75%
Information
Beneifts > Risks
Benefits
Perceive
> Risks
Beneifts
> Risks
85%
Hierarchical Individualist
Familiar with Nano
Hierarchical
0%
Individualist
No Information
Information-Exposed
Experimental Condition
63%
61%
* Change across conditions
significant at p < 0.05
no
86%*
Information-Exposed
Experimental Condition
50%
Egalitarian
Communitarian
25%
Source:
Kahan , Braman, Slovic,
Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of 23%*
Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
-Exposed
0%
No Info.
Info.-Exposed
Increase in Predicted Likelihood of SelfReported Familiarity with Nanotechnology
25%
20%
19.5%
Hierarch
15%
10%
5.8%
5%
3.6%
2.2%
0.9%
Egalitarian
0%
-0.5%
-0.9%
-0.9%
-1.4%
-2.6%
-5%
1st
1
Communitarian
40th
20th
2
3
4
60th
5Percentile
6
80th
7
8
Figure S1
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of
Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
99th
9
10
Individualistic
Cultural Cognition of Risk
But what about scientific consensus?
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Revised
Risk
Perception
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
Scientific
Consensus
Revised
Risk
Perception
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
Risk (0=low risk, 1=high)
Male (vs. Female)
White (vs. Black)
Nonwhite (vs. Black)
Age
Household Income
Education
No Religion (vs. some)
Church Attendance
Democrat (vs. Repub)
Independent (vs. Repub)
Other Party (vs. Repub)
Liberal => Conservative
Hierarch
Individ
Hierarch x Individ
Hierarch x Risk
Individ x Risk
Hierarch x Individ x Risk
LR χ2
G-test (delta LR χ2)
Step 1
-.31 (.09)
11.20
Global Warming
Step 2
-.32 (.09)
-.21 (.10)
-.22 (.15)
-.04 (.18)
.00 (.00)
.01 (.02)
.02 (.04)
-.15 (.12)
-.06 (.04)
.16 (.14)
.28 (.22)
.25 (.14)
.05 (.06)
29.74
18.54
Step 3
8.72 (2.78)
-.18 (.10)
-.07 (.16)
.23 (.18)
.00 (.00)
.01 (.02)
-.01 (.04)
-.09 (.13)
-.07 (.04)
.01 (.14)
.31 (.22)
.23 (.15)
.11 (.07)
.20 (.37)
-.17 (.36)
.16 (.07)
-.47 (.54)
.24 (.53)
-.32 (.10)
618.72
588.98
Nuclear Waste Disposal
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
2.41 (2.75)
.40 (.09)
.40 (.09)
-.07 (.10)
.00 (.10)
.11 (.16)
.19 (.16)
-.02 (.18)
.05 (.18)
.00 (.00)
.00 (.00)
-.02 (.01)
-.01 (.02)
.05 (.04)
.02 (.04)
.05 (.13)
.06 (.13)
-.04 (.04)
-.04 (.04)
.17 (.13)
.18 (.13)
.38 (.22)
.25 (.21)
.30 (.15)
.33 (.15)
.08 (.05)
.14 (.06)
.03 (.36)
-.15 (.35)
.07 (.07)
.00 (.53)
.61 (.52)
-.20 (.10)
18.50
31.60
172.69
13.10
141.09
Step 1
-.47 (.09)
25.84
Concealed Carry
Step 2
Step 3
-.47 (.09)
1.57 (2.69)
-.07 (.10)
-.12 (.10)
.13 (.15)
.09 (.16)
.14 (.18)
.07 (.18)
-.01 (.00)
-.01 (.00)
.03 (.02)
.02 (.02)
-.05 (.04)
-.03 (.04)
-.13 (.12)
-.08 (.13)
.00 (.04)
-.04 (.04)
.10 (.13)
.07 (.14)
.59 (.23)
.53 (.24)
.30 (.15)
.37 (.15)
-.02 (.05)
.00 (.06)
.25 (.38)
-.02 (.37)
.14 (.07)
-.92 (.52)
-.54 (.51)
-.16 (.10)
46.33
499.60
2.49
453.27
Table 2. Ordered logistic regression analysis of experiment results. N = 1500. Outcome variables are 6-point measure of disagreement-agreement
with the statement that “I believe the author is a trustworthy and knowledgeable expert on” the indicated issue. Predictor estimates are logit
coefficients. Standard errors are in parentheses. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient, model χ2, or G-statistic (incremental change in model
χ2 associated with additional predictors) is statistically significant at p < 0.05
89%
86%
78%
75% 100%
78%
78%
75%
100%
Is this a knowledgeable and credible
expert on ... ?
63%
83%
78%
85%
83%
78%51%
50%
75%
63%
89% 86%
85%
60% 60%
85%
83%
51%
78% 78%
78% 51%
89%
63%
63%
86%
86% 63% 60%
85% 60% 60%
85%
85%
85%
83%
83% 83%
83%
83%
25%
25%
78%
78%
78%23%
78%
78%
78%
51%
51% 78%
51%
51%
51%
50%
25%
75%
50%
Hierarc
EC
Egalita
85%
HI
Hierar
78%
0%
25%
51%
25% 51% 51%
25%
25% 23%50% 51%
Risk
Low risk
63%63%
25%
63%
63%
60%
60%
60%
63%
60%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
Pct. Agree
Egalit
23%
51%
51%
51%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High Risk
Low risk
Global Concealed Nuclear
aled Carry Expert
Waste
Expert
Warming
Carry
Waste
0% Nuclear
Expert
Expert
Expert
25%
25%
25%
25%
0% 25%
23%
High Risk Low risk High RiLow
sk Low risk High Risk risk
Low risk
isk
High Risk
Low risk
Global WarminCarry
g Expert Concealed Carry Expert NuclExpert
ear Waste Expert
led
Global Concealed Nuclear
Warming
Carry
Waste
Expert
Expert
Expert
Nuclear Waste Expert
0%
High
Risk High
Low
risk Risk
High
Risk Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk risk
Low
riskLow
Low
Low
risk
risk
High
Risk
Low
Low
risk
risk
High
Risk
h
Risk
Low
risk
High
Low
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
risk
Global Warming
Expert
Concealed
Carry Expert
NuclearExpert
Waste
Expert
Carry
ng
Expert
Expert
Concealed
Nuclear
Carry
Waste
Expert
Expert
Nuclear
Wa
ealed
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Waste
Concealed
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Waste
Expert
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
89%
86%
78%
75% 100%
78%
78%
75%
100%
Is this a knowledgeable and credible
expert on ... ?
63%
83%
78%
85%
83%
78%51%
50%
75%
63%
89% 86%
85%
60% 60%
85%
83%
51%
78% 78%
78% 51%
89%
63%
63%
86%
86% 63% 60%
85%
85% 60% 60%
85%
85%
83% 83%
83%
83%
83%
25%
25%
78%
78%
78%23%
78%
78%
78%
51%
51% 78%
51%
51%
51%
50%
25%
75%
50%
Hierarc
EC
Egalita
85%
HI
Hierar
78%
0%
25%
51%
25% 51% 51%
25%
25% 23%50% 51%
Risk
Low risk
63%63%
25%
63%
63%
60%
60%
60%
63%
60%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
Pct. Agree
Egalit
23%
51%
51%
51%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High Risk
Low risk
Global Concealed Nuclear
aled Carry Expert
Waste
Expert
Warming
Carry
Waste
0% Nuclear
Expert
Expert
Expert
25%
25%
25%
25%
0% 25%
23%
High Risk Low risk High RiLow
sk Low risk High Risk risk
Low risk
isk
High Risk
Low risk
Global WarminCarry
g Expert Concealed Carry Expert NuclExpert
ear Waste Expert
led
Global Concealed Nuclear
Warming
Carry
Waste
Expert
Expert
Expert
Nuclear Waste Expert
0%
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk High
Low
risk Risk
High
Risk Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk risk
Low
riskLow
Low
risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
h
Risk
Low
risk
High
Low
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
risk
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Waste
Expert
Global Warming
Expert
Concealed
Carry Expert
NuclearExpert
Waste
Expert
ng
Expert
Concealed
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Wa
ealed
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Waste
Concealed
Carry
Expert
Nuclear
Waste
Expert
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
78%
78%
75%
100%
Is this a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... ?
63%
60%
85%
83%
51%
78%
78% 51%
89% 86%
100%
50%
75%
89%
25%
75%
EC
Egalita
86%
50%
Hierarc
78%23%
51%
83%
25%
63%
85%
60%
78%
51%
HI
Hierar
63%
0%
25%
51%
50%
25%
23%
25%
51%
Global Concealed Nuclear
Warming
Carry
Waste
Expert
Expert
Expert
25%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
0%
60%
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
High
Risk
Low
risk
Pct. Agree
Egalit
23%
Global Concealed Nuclear
Warming
Carry
Waste
Expert
Expert
Expert
0%
High Risk
Low risk
High Risk
Low risk
High Risk
Low risk
Global Warming Expert Concealed Carry Expert Nuclear Waste Expert
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus.
J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
Scientific
Consensus
Revised
Risk
Perception
Most agree
Most disagree
Divided
4x
8x
4x
“What is the position of expert scientists?”
How much more likely to believe
Most agree
5x
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Communitarian
Individualist
Communitarian
Individualist
Most
disagree
6x
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Egalitarian
Hierarchical
Communitarian
Individualist
Individualist
Divided
2x
Communitarian Communitarian
Individualist
Most agree
Most
4x agree
4x
57%
Most
disagree
Most
8x
8x
Most disagree
agree
4x
Most agree
4x
Most agree
4x
Global
temperatures
are
12x
agree
2x
Divided
Divided
4x
4x
Most disagree
8x
8x
Most disagree Most disagree
8x
increasing.
3x
Most disagree
2x
4x
DividedDivided
4x
Divided
4x
Divided
=
=
Most agree
Most
5x agree
5x
disagree
Most
6x
6x
Most disagree
agree
5x
5x
Most
agreeglobalMost agree
5x
6x
HumanMost
activity
is causing
agree
5x
Divided
Divided
2x
2x
Most disagree
6x
6x
Most disagree Most disagree
6x
warming.
Most disagree
4x
2x
DividedDivided
2x
Divided
2x
Divided
=
=
Most agree
Most
2x agree
2x
Radioactive
wastes
from
nuclear
Most disagree
Most
2x
2x
Most disagree
agree
2x
Most agree
2x
Most agree
2x
power can
be safely
of inMost disagree
Divided
Divided
= disagree
=
=
=
Most
2x
2x
Mostdisposed
disagree
2x
deep underground storage facilities.
=
DividedDivided=
=
=
Divided
==
Most agree
Most agree
Most
disagree
Most
4x disagree
Most
agree
Permitting
adults
without
criminalMost agree
Most
agree
records or
histories
mental illness
Divided
Divided
= disagree
Most
Most disagree
Mostofdisagree
4x
to carry concealed
handguns in DividedDivided=
Divided
public decreases violent crime.
5x
4x=
=
4x
5x
=
4x
==
5x
=
5x
5x
=
=
Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme
Hierarchist
Risk Perception Key:
Low Risk
High Risk
Climate Change
Nuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Individualist
Communitarian
Climate Change
Nuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Egalitarian
“What is the position of expert scientists?”
How much more likely to believe
Egalitarian
Communitarian
57%
Most agree
Most disagree
Divided
4x
Human activity is causing global
warming.
Most agree
Most disagree
Divided
5x
Radioactive wastes from nuclear
power can be safely disposed of in
deep underground storage facilities.
Most agree
Most disagree
Divided
2x
Permitting adults without criminal
records or histories of mental illness
to carry concealed handguns in
public decreases violent crime.
Most agree
Most disagree
Divided
Global temperatures are
increasing.
Hierarchical
Individualist
8x
4x
6x
2x
=
2x
=
5x
4x
=
=
www.culturalcognition.net
Science Literacy, Cultural Cognition, and the
Tragedy of the Risk-Perceptions Commons
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
Ellen Peters
Ohio State University
Maggie Wittlin
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Paul Slovic
Decision Research
Donald Braman
George Washington University
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106
Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Gregory Mandel
Temple University
“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
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance...
1.00
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
1.00 0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.75
-1.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
low
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?”
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?”
POLARIZATION
INCREASES
scil-lit/numeracy
Actual interaction
of as
culture
& sci-lit/numincreases
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
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Revised
Risk
Perception
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 ... poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
climate change
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.75
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.25
0.00
high
lowlow
vs. vs.
high
sci sci
-0.25
-0.25
0.00
hi low
v. high
hi low
v. high
low vs. high sci
-0.50
-0.50
-0.25
v. high
ec ec
lowlow
v. high
-0.75
-0.75
-0.50
-1.00
-1.00
-0.75
-1.25
-1.25
Lesser
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
1 1
point
High
2 22
point
Scientific literacy/Numeracy
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
• Kahan, Wittlin, Peters, Slovic, Braman & Mandel, Scientific Literacy,
Climate Change, and the “Tragedy of the Risk Perceptions Commons,”
CCP Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011)
 I.
Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
 II. Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
III. Misinformation
1. Misinformation doesn’t matter very much unless
citizens are culturally predisposed to accept it.
2. When citizens are predisposed to accept
misinformation, furnishing them with accurate
information won't by itself do much good.
3. The kind of misinformation to worry about is
public advocacy that invests policy-relevant
factual issues with antagonistic cultural
meanings.
Science Communication & Cultural Cognition
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Other
Influences
Revised
Risk
Perception
Science Communication & Cultural Cognition
Cultural
Predisposition
Prior
Risk
Perception
New
Information
Other
Influences
Revised
Risk
Perception
 I.
Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model
 II. Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition
 III. Misinformation
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!