1 / 76

Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many others

www.culturalcognition.net. Thinking Scientifically About Climate Science Communication. Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many others. The science communication problem. 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation : the public irrationality thesis (PIT) 2. Another, better one

adeola
Download Presentation

Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many others

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 Thinking Scientifically About Climate Science Communication Dan M. Kahan Yale University &many others

  2. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science

  3. “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, 2, 732-35 (2012).

  4. “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, 2, 732-35 (2012).

  5. “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, 2, 732-35 (2012).

  6. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science  :motivated reasoning

  7. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism Communitarianism egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians Egalitarianism

  8. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Gays military/gay parenting hierarchical communitarians Abortion procedure Guns/Gun Control cats/annoying varmints HPV Vaccination Individualism Communitarianism Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear Abortion procedure Guns/Gun Control egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians HPV Vaccination cats/annoying varmints Egalitarianism

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

  10. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Individualism Communitarianism Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Egalitarianism

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

  12. Climate Change High Risk (science conclusive) Low Risk (science inconclusive)

  13. Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes High Risk (not safe) Low Risk (safe)

  14. Concealed Carry Laws High Risk (Increase crime) Low Risk (Decrease Crime)

  15. Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... Egalitarian Communitarian More Likely to Agree Hierarchical Individualist More Likely to Agree Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response 60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60% 54% Climate Change 72% 22% Nuclear Power 31% 58% Concealed Carry 61% 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

  16. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Individualism Communitarianism Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Egalitarianism

  17. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Perceived Scientific Consensus: Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Individualism Communitarianism Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans Egalitarianism

  18. “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.

  19. “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.

  20. “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.

  21. “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.

  22. “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.

  23. Kahan, D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407-424 (2013) Motivated Numeracy

  24. “Skin cream experiment”

  25. “Skin cream experiment”

  26. “Gun ban experiment”

  27. Four conditions

  28. Numeracy Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.

  29. Correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases Numeracy score Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.

  30. Numeracy numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data.

  31. Correct interpretation of data

  32. Correct interpretation of data skin treatment Gun ban

  33. Correct interpretation of data Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub) Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) skin treatment Gun ban

  34. Best fitting regression model for experiment results • N = 1111. Outcome variable is “Correct” (0 = incorrect interpretation of data, 1 = correct interpretation). Predictor estimates are logit coefficients with z-test statistic indicated parenthetically. Experimental assignment predictors—rash_decrease, rash_increase, and crime_increase—are dummy variables (0 = unassigned, 1 = assigned—with assignment to “crime decreases” as the comparison condition. Z_numeracy and Conserv_Repub are centered at 0 for ease of interpretation. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient is significant at p < 0.05.

  35. Regression model predicted probabilities Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub) high numeracy = 8 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub) Low numeracy High numeracy rash increases rash decreases rash increases rash decreases rash decreases rash decreases rash increases skin treatment rash increases 0% 10% 20% 50% 60% 70% 30% 40% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 50% 60% 70% 30% 40% 80% 90% 100% crime decreases crime increases crime increases crime increases crime decreases crime decreases Gun ban crime decreases crime increases 0% 10% 20% 50% 60% 70% 0% 10% 20% 50% 60% 70% 30% 30% 40% 80% 90% 100% 40% 80% 90% 100% probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data

  36. Numeracy magnification of motivated reasoning Avg. “polarization” on crime data for low numeracy partisans 25% (± 9%) Avg. “polarization” on crime data for high numeracy partisans 46% (± 17%) Low numeracy High numeracy

  37. Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) high numeracy = 8 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Hierarch individid (+1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) Low numeracy High numeracy EC rash increases HI rash increases HI rash increases HI rash decreases HI rash decreases EC rash decreases EC rash increases EC rash decreases skin treatment HI crime decrease HI crime increase EC crime increase HI crime increase EC crime decrease EC crime decrease Gun ban EC crime increase HI crime decrease probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data

  38. “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.

  39. The science communication problem Not too little rationality, but too much.

  40. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning

  41. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: • * to the ordinary decisionmaker:

  42. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: • * to the ordinary decisionmaker:

  43. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: • * to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science

  44. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: • * to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science

  45. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: the normality/ • * to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science

  46. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality • * to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science

  47. The science communication problem • 1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT) • 2. Another, better one • 3. Communicating what to whom about climate science   :motivated reasoning • * to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality of climate science • * to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science

More Related