Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. papers,etc:

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

papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.net

http://www.culturalcognition.net/

www.culturalcognition.net

The Science Communication Problem:One Good Explanation, Four Not so Good

Ones, and a Fitting Solution

Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School

Dan M. Kahan Yale University

& many many others!

I. One good explanation: identity-protective cognition

II. Four not so good ones …

A. Science denialB. MisinformationC. Rationality deficit (RD)D. Authoritarian personality (redux)

III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between meaning and fact

The science communication problem . . .

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure

compulsory psychiatric treatment

Abortion procedure

compulsory psychiatric treatment

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Individualism Communitarianism

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 individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

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

Climate ChangeNuclear Power


Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism





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



Memberships:



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:




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



Memberships:



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 ...

















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 =

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.

57%

“What is the position of expert scientists?”

How much more likely to believe

5x

2x =

12x

3x

6x

-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%


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






Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism






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 =

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.

57%

“What is the position of expert scientists?”

How much more likely to believe

5x

2x =

12x

3x

6x






Misinformation and the science communication problem

Economically motivated

interest groups

misinformation supplyThe standard

view: CredulousPublic



Climate Change


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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

isk

High R

isk


ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%


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

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Chan

ge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk




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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH

igh RiskN = 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%


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 RiskHigh Risk




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



Memberships:



“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



Memberships:





Climate Changeclimate 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



Memberships:




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:




Oliver Roberts



Memberships:



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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

isk

High R

isk


ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%


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

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Chan

ge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk




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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH



ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%


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 RiskHigh Risk




Low Risk(safe)

High Risk(not safe)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes

Nuclear power

“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



Memberships:



“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



Memberships:







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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

isk

High R

isk


ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%


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

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Chan

ge

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk




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

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH



ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%


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 RiskHigh Risk




Concealed Carry






Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism






interest groups

CredulousPublic

misinformation supply

Culturally Motivated

Public

OpportunisticMisinformers

demand for misinformation

The motivated-public account:

The standardview:

…






-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

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

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.

RD prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality

High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)

Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)

Actual 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

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 variance . . .

High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)

Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)

High Sci lit/numeracy

Low Sci lit/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-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




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




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



RD 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








1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT

control vs. “skeptic biased” & “nonskeptic biased”

Sample

Measures

Experimental Manipulation

Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design

Finding # 1. Political differences in CRT are trivial

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0 1 2 3

Democrat

Republican

No. correct

Like

lihoo

d of

ans

wer

ing

corr

ectly

Democrat

Republican




Sample

Measures


Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"

Lib Dem

Con Repub

Finding # 2. Identity-protective cognition is ideologically symmetric

Lib. Dem.

Conserv. Repub.

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f p

erce

ivin

g C

RT

val

id




Sample

Measures


Study design




Sample

Measures


Study design

Finding # 3. Identity-protective cognition increases with CRT

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Lib Dem Lo CRT

Con Repub Lo CRT

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Lib Dem Hi CRT

Con Repub Hi CRT

Lib. Dem., low CRT

Conserv. Repub., low CRT

Lib. Dem., high CRT

Conserv. Repub., high CRT

Lik

elih

oo

d o

f p

erce

ivin

g C

RT

val

id








interest groups

CredulousPublic

misinformation supply


Public



The motivated-public account:

The standardview:

…



Public


demand for misinformation…?


Public



Strategic Behavior+ Misadventure

+ Miscalculation…

generation of antagonistic meanings


Public

Pollution of the science communication environment

…




III. A fitting solution: the wall of separation between cultural meaning and scientific fact


Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

Documents

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. papers,etc: