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

1. Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net

2. www.culturalcognition.net Cultural Cognition and Science Communication

3. The science communication problem: • A simple model: Cultural cognition of risk • Some evidence: Mechanismsof cultural cognition • A. Nanotechnology: culturally biased search, assimilation • B. Scientific consensus: cultural availability • C. Climate change risk “fast” and “slow”: cultural dual process • III. Solution: Two channel communication strategy

4. Unbiased Evidence Assessment • New • Evidence • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

5. Confirmation Bias • New • Evidence • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

6. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

7. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

8. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

9. The science communication problem:  • A simple model: Cultural cognition of risk • Some evidence: Mechanismsof cultural cognition • A. Nanotechnology: culturally biased search, assimilation • B. Scientific consensus: cultural availability • C. Climate change risk “fast” and “slow”: cultural dual process • III. Solution: Two channel communication strategy

11. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

12. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

13. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

14. Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Risk Perception Key: Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate Change Nuclear Power Abortion Environmental Risk Compulsory psychiatric treatment Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Individualism Communitarianism Climate Change Nuclear Power Abortion Environmental Risk Compulsory psychiatriac treatment Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Egalitarianism

15. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

16. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

17. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • 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)

18. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * 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)

19. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * 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)

20. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * 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)

21. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)

22. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design)

23. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

24. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

25. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

26. High Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk Almost No Risk 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.

27. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

28. 25% 20% 19.5% Hierarch 15% 10% Increase in Predicted Likelihood of Self-Reported Familiarity with Nanotechnology 5.8% 5% 3.6% 2.2% 0.9% Egalitarian 0% -0.5% -0.9% -0.9% -1.4% -2.6% -5% 1st 40th 60th 80th 99th 20th Individualistic Communitarian Percentile Figure S1 Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

29. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

30. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

31. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

32. The science communication problem:  • A simple model: Cultural cognition of risk • Some evidence: Mechanismsof cultural cognition • A. Nanotechnology: culturally biased search, assimilation • B. Scientific consensus: cultural availability • C. Climate change risk “fast” and “slow”: cultural dual process • III. Solution: Two channel communication strategy

33. Cultural Cognition • New • Evidence • Cultural • Predisposition • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

34. Cultural Cognition • Cultural • Predisposition • Scientific • Consensus • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

36. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key: Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism

37. “What is the position of expert scientists?” How much more likely to believe 57% Global temperatures are increasing. 12x 3x 6x Human activity is causing global warming. 5x 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.

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

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

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

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

42. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key: Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism

43. 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

44. “What is the position of expert scientists?” How much more likely to believe 57% Global temperatures are increasing. 12x 3x 6x Human activity is causing global warming. 5x 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.

45. Cultural Cognition • Cultural • Predisposition • Scientific • Consensus • Revised • Factual • Belief • Prior • Factual • Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

46. The science communication problem:  • A simple model: Cultural cognition of risk • Some evidence: Mechanismsof cultural cognition • A. Nanotechnology: culturally biased search, assimilation • B. Scientific consensus: cultural availability • C. Climate change risk “fast” and “slow”: cultural dual process • III. Solution: Two channel communication strategy

48. The “Public Irrationality Thesis” • Science illiteracy • “Bounded rationality” 1 + 2 + 3 = The “public irrationality thesis” (PIT)

49. “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. 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.

50. “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 perceived risk (z-score) Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 Lesser 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.