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

Dan M. KahanYale University

& many others

Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, SES-06021840 & SES 02-42106 Skoll GlobalThreats

www.culturalcognition.net

Thinking Scientifically About Climate Science Communication

1. A plausible but incorrect explanation: the public irrationality thesis (PIT)

2. Another, better one

3. Communicating what to whom about climate science

The science communication problem

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

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).

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

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.

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci

High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)

Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci

Lesser Risk

Greater Risk

Science literacy Numeracylow high

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

low high

PIT prediction PIT prediction

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

30b 30t 30b 30t

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

30b 30t 30b 30t

actual varianceactual variance


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci







: motivated reasoning

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Individualism Communitarianism

hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure

Abortion procedure


Environment: climate, nuclear

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination

Gays military/gay parenting

Gays military/gay parenting

Environment: climate, nuclear

hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian individualists


egalitarian communitarians


cats/annoying varmints

cats/annoying varmints

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

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism




Climate change

Climate change

Nuclear waste disposal


Concealed carry bans


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


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


“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



Memberships:



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



Memberships:



“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



Memberships:



“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


“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


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 R

iskH

igh 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

Nuc

lear

Was

te

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk

Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree

Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree

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

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism




Climate change

Climate change





Hierarchy

Egalitarianism



Climate change

Climate change



Perceived Scientific Consensus:Low RiskHigh Risk



-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci


Low Sci lit/numeracy

High Sci lit/numeracy

Cultural Variance

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Hierarchical Individualist

Egalitarian Communitarian

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.

Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)



-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


Egalitarian Communitarian

PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low highHierarchical Individualist


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci



Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm

Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm

Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ

High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num


POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases



-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



Motivated Numeracy

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

“Skin cream experiment”

“Skin cream experiment”

“Gun ban experiment”

Four conditions

Numeracy

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

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

Numeracy scoreEntire Sample

Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples

Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0

01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

scatterplot: skin treatment

Correct interpretation of data

rash decreases

rash increases

Numeracy score

01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.

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

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

Numeracy scoreEntire Sample

Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples

Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0

Numeracy

01

corr

ect

inte

rpre

tatio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreasesrash increases

Numeracy score

01

correct interpretation of data (

=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy



skin treatment

Gun ban

01

corr

ect

inte

rpre

tatio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy



Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

scatterplot: gun ban

Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreasescrime increases


skin treatment

Gun ban

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01

correct interpretation of da

ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases

rash increasesrash decreases

rash increases

Numeracy score01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corre

ct int

erpr

etatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_correct interpretation of data (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases


Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

skin treatment

Gun ban

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.

Best fitting regression model for experiment results

rash_decrease 0.40 (1.57)rash increase 0.06 (0.22)crime increase 1.07 (4.02)z_numeracy -0.01 (-0.05)z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease 0.55 (2.29)z_numeracy_x_rash_increase 0.23 (1.05)z_numeracy_x_crime_increase 0.46 (2.01)z_numeracy2 0.31 (2.46)z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease 0.02 (0.14)z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase -0.07 (-0.39)z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase -0.31 (-1.75)Conserv_Repub -0.64 (-3.95)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.56 (2.64)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase 1.28 (6.02)Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase 0.63 (2.82)z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub -0.33 (-1.89)z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.33 (1.40)z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase 0.54 (2.17)z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase 0.26 (1.08)_constant -0.96 (-4.70)

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0142




High numeracyLow numeracy

high numeracy = 8 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct

Regression model predicted probabilities

skin treatment

Gun ban

probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data

rash decreases

rash increases

rash decreases


rash increases

rash decreases

rash increases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

crime decreases



Gun ban


crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

crime decreases

Numeracy magnification of motivated reasoning

Avg. “polarization”on crime data

for high numeracypartisans

46% (± 17%)

Avg. “polarization”on crime data

for low numeracypartisans

25% (± 9%)




probability of correct interpretation of data


probability of correct interpretation of data0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0374



probability of correct interpretation of dataEC rash increases

HI crime decrease

HI crime increase

EC crime decrease

EC crime increase

HI crime decrease

HI crime increase

EC crime decrease

EC crime increase

HI rash increases

HI rash decreases


EC rash decreasesEC rash decreases

EC rash increases

HI rash increases

HI rash decreases

skin treatment

Gun ban

high numeracy = 8 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct

Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on Hfac & Ifac)Hierarch individid (+1 SD on Hfac & Ifac)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num





-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high








Skin treatment

Gun ban

probability of correct interpretation of data probability of correct interpretation of data


rash decreases

rash increases rash decreases

rash increases

rash decreases

rash increases

crime increasescrime decreases

crime increases

crime decreasescrime decreases

crime increases

Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub) Conservative Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)low numeracy = 3 correct/ high numeracy = 7 correct

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

crime decreases

crime increases

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

probabilityof correct interpretation of data0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num





-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH

igh Risk


ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%

Difference in Likelihood of Agreeing Scientist is “Expert”

60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nuc

lear

Was

te

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk




Not too little rationality, but too much.












* to the ordinary citizen:

* to the ordinary decisionmaker:







* to the ordinary decisionmaker:







* to the ordinary decisionmaker: normal climate science













* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/







* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality







* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality of climate science







Skin treatment

Gun ban

probability of correct interpretation of data probability of correct interpretation of data


rash decreases

rash increases rash decreases

rash increases

rash decreases

rash increases

crime increasescrime decreases

crime increases

crime decreasescrime decreases

crime increases

Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub) Conservative Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)low numeracy = 3 correct/ high numeracy = 7 correct

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

crime decreases

crime increases

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

probabilityof correct interpretation of data0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser

perc

eive

d ris

k (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

point 1 point 2

low vs. high sci




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

sci_num





-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH

igh Risk


ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%

Difference in Likelihood of Agreeing Scientist is “Expert”

60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nuc

lear

Was

te

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk





Not too little rationality, but too much.

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01


ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases


rash increases

Numeracy score

Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)0

1

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corr

ect i

nter

pret

atio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists



-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science comprehension score-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Science comprehension score

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5Science comprehension score-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Science comprehension score

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

CommunitarianismIndividualism

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01


ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases


rash increases

Numeracy score01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corre

ct int

erpr

etatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

Correct interpretation of dataLiberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01


ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases


rash increases

Numeracy score01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corre

ct int

erpr

etatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01


0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

Correct interpretation of dataLiberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)








Communicating Normality

Communicating Normality

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01


ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases


rash increases

Numeracy score

Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corr

ect i

nter

pret

atio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases








Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

Documents

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