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

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.

comments questions: [email protected]

papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

Thinking Scientifically About Science Communication

Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School

& many many others!

www.culturalcognition.net

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

1. What am I talking about?

2. Three studies

3. Four principles

Thinking scientifically about science communication:

• Perceptions of scientific consensus• HPV vaccine risk perceptions• Geoengineering & the communication environment

• Science communication is a science• “Science communication” isn’t one thing (try five)• “Ask not what science communication can do for you…”• Science communication is a public good

Scientific Consensus: Study Design

1,500 US adults, nationally representative on-line panel Cultural worldviews Demographic characteristics

Perceptions of scientific consensus on culturally contested issues thatare subject of NAS “expert consensus” reports: global warming, nuclear waste disposal, “concealed carry” laws

Perception of expertise of university faculty/NAS members, manipulating positions global warming, nuclear waste disposal, “concealed carry” laws

Sample

Survey Component

Experimental Component

Climate ChangeNuclear Power


Guns/Gun Control

Risk Perception Key:Low RiskHigh Risk

Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme

Environmental Risk

Environmental Risk

Abortion

Abortion

Child-welfare, gay-lesbian adoptionGuns/Gun Control

Egalitarian

CommunitarianIndividualist

Hierarchist

Child-welfare, gay-lesbian adoption



Guns/Gun Control

Risk Perception Key:Low RiskHigh Risk

Guns/Gun Control

Egalitarian


Hierarchist


Egalitarian Communitarian

Hierarchical Individualist

Most agree 4x Most disagree

8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x

Most disagree 4x Divided =

=

2x =

2x =

Global temperatures are increasing.

Human activity is causing global warming.

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

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

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

2x =

3x

6x

4x4x

= =

5x4x= =

2x

2x =

12x

5x

2x




8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x


=

2x =

2x =





57%


2x =

3x

6x

4x4x

= =

5x4x= =

2x

2x =

12x

5x

2x




8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x


=

2x =

2x =

2x =





57%


2x =

3x

6x

4x4x

= =

5x4x= =

2x 2x

=

12x

2x

2x

5x

Scientific Consensus: Study Design

1,500 US adults, nationally representative on-line panel Cultural worldviews Demographic characteristics

Perceptions of scientific consensus on culturally contested issues thatare subject of NAS “expert consensus” reports: global warming, nuclear waste disposal, “concealed carry” laws

Perception of expertise of university faculty/NAS members, manipulating positions global warming, nuclear waste disposal, “concealed carry” laws

Sample

Survey Component

Experimental Component

Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:

American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences

“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:

American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences

High Risk(science conclusive)

Low Risk(science inconclusive)

Climate Change

randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts

Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:

American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences

“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



Low Risk(safe)

High Risk(not safe)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts



“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”

James Williams Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences

“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”

James Williams

Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences

High Risk(Increase crime)

Low Risk(Decrease Crime)

Concealed Carry Laws

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low RiskHigh Risk

N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence

ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%61%

72%

Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response 60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low RiskHigh Risk

Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree

Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree

Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...




8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x


=

2x =

2x =

2x =





57%


2x =

3x

6x

4x4x

= =

5x4x= =

2x 2x

=

12x

5x2x

2x

Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).




8x

Divided

4x

Most agree 5x

Most disagree

6x Divided

2x

Most agree 2x

Most disagree

2x Divided =

=

Most agree

5x


=

2x =

2x =

2x =





57%


2x =

3x

6x

4x4x

= =

5x4x= =

2x 2x

=

12x

5x2x

2x


2. Three studies

3. Four principles




HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design

1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism

5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”

1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus advocates (n = 1,022)

Sample

Cultural Worldviews

HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions

Conditions





Sample

Cultural Worldviews


Conditions



Egalitarian


Hierarchist

Risk high, benefits low

Benefits high, risks low





Sample

Cultural Worldviews


Conditions


61%

66%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment

Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

No Argument BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr

ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5

No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate

Expected AdvocateAlignment

UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment

Intramural AdvocateAlignment

Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No Arg ument Argu me nt Expe cted Advoc ate/ Argumen tAli gnment

Une xpect ed Ad voca te/ArgumentAlignment

Plur alistic Advocate /Arg umentAlig nment

Hierarchi cal Individual istEgalitarian Communitari an

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Pct.

Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5










Sample

Cultural Worldviews


Conditions


Culturally Identifiable Experts

Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

56%

61%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Pct.

Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






ExpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

47%

56%

61%

71%

66%

70%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






UnexpectedArgument/Advocate

Alignment

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Alignment


Alignment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5






Culturally Identifiable Experts

Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%






Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr


2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5







Alignment


Alignment

PluralisticArgument

Environment

BalancedArgument

Pct.

Agr

ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

54%

65%

47%

56%

61%61%

71%

66%

70%

58%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%





Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview

2.0

2.3

2.5

2.8

3.0

3.3

3.5







2. Three studies

3. Four principles




4. Experimental response items

A. Evidence Skepticism Module

13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?

Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]

14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a

reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the

findings of the Nature Science study.

study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism

Climate change

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Communitarianism

Climate change

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

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

control pollution geoengineering

HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit

Study dismissiveness

Hierarch IndividEgal Commun

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Control Condition

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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Anti-pollution Condition

Geoengineering Condition

4. Experimental response items

A. Evidence Skepticism Module

13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?

Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]

14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a

reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the

findings of the Nature Science study. study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism

Climate change

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Communitarianism

Climate change

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Anti-pollution Condition

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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

anti-pollution

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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Geoengineering Condition

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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

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


HI

EC

anti-pollution

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


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss 2

Dismiss

Credit



anti-pollution

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


more polarization

lesspolarization

Polarizationz_

Stud

y di

smiss

2

anti-pollution

N = 1500. Estimates derived from multivariate regression. CIs denote 0.95 level of confidence.


2. Three studies

3. Four principles




Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

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

Documents

nuclear waste disposal

positions global warming

university facultynas

study design1

us adults

youscience communication

public good3

modest animation