1 / 81

Informing Public P erceptions of Risk and Other Legally C onsequential F acts

www. culturalcognition.net. Informing Public P erceptions of Risk and Other Legally C onsequential F acts. Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many others. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1 . Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk

aitana
Download Presentation

Informing Public P erceptions of Risk and Other Legally C onsequential F acts

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. www. culturalcognition.net Informing Public Perceptions of Risk and Other Legally Consequential Facts Dan M. Kahan Yale University &many others

  2. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

  3. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  4. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  5. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  6. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  7. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  8. Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism Communitarianism egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians Egalitarianism

  9. Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Hierarchy Risk > Benefit Individualism Communitarianism Benefit > Risk Egalitarianism

  10. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  11. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  12. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree BalancedArgument No Argument

  13. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree BalancedArgument No Argument

  14. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n= 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  15. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Cultural Worldviews • HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions • Conditions • 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” • No-argument (n = 250) • Balanced Arguments (n = 250) • Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)

  16. Culturally Identifiable Experts Hierarchy Communitarianism Individualism Egalitarianism

  17. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  18. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  19. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Pluralistic Argument Environment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  20. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Pluralistic Argument Environment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  21. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts 

  22. Mary Douglas’s Group-grid worldview scheme Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Gays military/gay parenting hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Guns/Gun Control Abortion procedure compulsory psychiatric treatment HPV Vaccination Individualism Communitarianism Abortion procedure Environment: climate, nuclear Gays military/gay parenting Guns/Gun Control egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians compulsory psychiatric treatment HPV Vaccination Egalitarianism

  23. Culturally motivated search & assimilation • Cultural source credibility effect • Cultural availability effect Mechanisms of cultural cognition • 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) • 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 Evidence (mechanisms). L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010) • Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)

  24. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Greater perceived risk (z-score) Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  25. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality Greater High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”) perceived risk (z-score) Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”) Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  26. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Greater Risk PIT prediction PIT prediction actual variance actual variance perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Risk low high low high Science literacy Numeracy U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  27. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy? Cultural Variance Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarchical Individualist Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  28. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarchical Individualist Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  29. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num... Greater HighSci lit/numeracy EgalComm LowSci/lit numeracy EgalComm Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  30. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num... Greater HighSci lit/numeracy EgalComm LowSci/lit numeracy EgalComm Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy LowSci lit/num. HierarcIndivid HighSci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  31. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases Greater HighSci lit/numeracy EgalComm LowSci/lit numeracy EgalComm Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy LowSci lit/num. HierarcIndivid HighSci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ Lesser U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.

  32. Culturally motivated search & assimilation • Cultural source credibility effect • Cultural availability effect • 4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning Mechanisms of cultural cognition • 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) • 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 Evidence (mechanisms). L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010) • Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011) • Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Climate Change, advance on line publication, doi:10.1038/nclimate1547 (2012).

  33. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts  

  34. A tale of two vaccines …

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

  36. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Pluralistic Argument Environment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  37. Oct. 2011 Oct. 2005…

  38. “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Pct. Agree Pluralistic Argument Environment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment BalancedArgument No Argument

  39. Oct. 2011 Oct. 2005…

  40. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts   

  41. Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

  42. Experimental Conditions Abortion Clinic Condition Recruitment Center Condition

  43. Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism Communitarianism egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians Egalitarianism

  44. Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

  45. Judicial management of cultural cognition How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection? How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact? Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition? Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations—that might help to mitigate cultural cognition? How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions? How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures?

More Related