Yale University amp many others wwwculturalcognitionnet Thinking Scientifically About Climate Science Communication 1 A plausible but incorrect explanation the public irrationality thesis PIT ID: 170800
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Dan M. Kahan" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Dan M. KahanYale University& many others
www.culturalcognition.net
Thinking
Scientifically About Climate Science CommunicationSlide2
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 problemSlide3Slide4
“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
perceived risk (z-score)
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.Slide5
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
High Sci.
litearcy
/System 2 (“slow”)
Low Sci.
litearcy
/System 1 (“fast”)
“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).
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.Slide6
Lesser RiskGreater Risk
Science literacy
Numeracy
low
high
perceived risk (z-score)
low
high
PIT prediction
PIT prediction
actual variance
actual variance
“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).
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.Slide7
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
:
motivated reasoningSlide8
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Individualism
Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitarians
egalitarian individualists
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High RiskSlide9
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Abortion procedure
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 communitarians
egalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
egalitarian communitarians
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
cats
/
annoying varmints
cats
/
annoying varmintsSlide10Slide11
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res.
14, 147-74
(2011).Slide12
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Concealed carry bansSlide13
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res.
14, 147-74
(2011).Slide14
High Risk(science conclusive)Low Risk(science inconclusive)
Climate ChangeSlide15
Low Risk(safe)High Risk(not safe)
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear WastesSlide16
High Risk(Increase crime)Low Risk(Decrease Crime)
Concealed Carry LawsSlide17
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
Concealed
Carry
Climate
Change
Nuclear
Power
31%
54%
22%
58%
61%
72%
Pct
. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting
Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
Egalitarian Communitarian
More Likely to Agree
Hierarchical Individualist
More Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable
and credible
expert
on ... Slide18
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Concealed carry bansSlide19
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste disposal
Perceived Scientific Consensus:
Low Risk
High Risk
Concealed carry bans
Concealed carry bansSlide20Slide21
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Cultural Variance
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?Slide22
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
Hierarchical Individualist
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
.Slide23
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Actual interaction of culture &
sci
-lit/num...
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egal
Comm
Low
Sci
/lit numeracy
Egal
Comm
Low
Sci
lit/num.
Hierarc
Individ
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Hierarch
Individ
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
.Slide24
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/num.
Hierarc
Individ
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egal
Comm
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Hierarch
Individ
Low
Sci
/lit numeracy
Egal
Comm
Actual interaction of culture &
sci
-lit/num...
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
.Slide25
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/num.
Hierarc
Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as
scil
-lit/numeracy increases
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egal
Comm
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Hierarch
Individ
Low
Sci
/lit numeracy
Egal
Comm
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
.Slide26
Motivated NumeracyKahan, D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making
8, 407-424 (2013)Slide27
“Skin cream experiment”Slide28
“Skin cream experiment”Slide29
“Gun ban experiment”Slide30
Four conditionsSlide31
NumeracyConserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.Slide32
Correct interpretation of datarash decreasesrash increases
Numeracy score
Lowess
smoother superimposed on raw data.Slide33
numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data.NumeracySlide34
Correct interpretation of dataSlide35
Correct interpretation of dataskin treatmentGun banSlide36
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on
Conservrepub
)
Conserv
Republicans (> 0 on
Conservrepub
)
skin treatment
Gun banSlide37
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)Slide38
High numeracy
Low numeracy
high numeracy = 8 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct
Regression model predicted probabilitiesskin 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
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 decreasesSlide39
Numeracy
magnification
of motivated reasoning
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
High numeracy
Low numeracySlide40
High numeracyLow numeracy
EC 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
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
EC rash decreases
EC rash decreases
EC rash increases
HI rash increases
HI rash decreases
skin treatment
Gun ban
high numeracy = 8 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on
Hfac
&
Ifac
)
Hierarch
individid
(+1 SD on
Hfac
&
Ifac
)Slide41
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/num.
Hierarc
Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as
scil
-lit/numeracy increases
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egal
Comm
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Hierarch
Individ
Low
Sci
/lit numeracy
Egal
Comm
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
.Slide42
Not too little rationality, but too much.
The science communication problemSlide43
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
:
motivated reasoning
Slide44
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen:
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:Slide45
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen:
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:Slide46
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen:
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide47
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen:
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide48
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide49
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide50
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality
of
climate science
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide51
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.Slide52Slide53
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitarians
egalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsSlide54
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Communitarianism
IndividualismSlide55
Correct interpretation of dataLiberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)Conserv
Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)Slide56
Correct interpretation of dataLiberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)
Conserv
Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)Slide57
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality
of
climate science
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science Slide58Slide59
very high riskNo risk at allScience literacy score
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical IndividualistHow much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?)
4 counties: science literacy, culture & climate change risk perceptions
N
= 2,000. Fitted regression valuesSlide60Slide61Slide62Slide63
“normality/banality”Slide64
“
Abnormal—but
exciting!”Slide65
Egalitarian CommunitarianHierarchical IndividualistHow do you feel about the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact (the 4-county governmental association addressing sea-level rise issues?)
Normal/banal
AbnormalSlide66
Normal/banal
How do you feel about the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact (the 4-county governmental association addressing sea-level rise issues?)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical IndividualistAbnormalSlide67
Normal/banal
Abnormal
How do you feel about the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Compact (the 4-county governmental association addressing sea-level rise issues?)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical IndividualistSlide68
How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?)very high riskNo risk at all
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
very high riskNo risk at allSlide69
Greater
Lesser
perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/numeracy
Low
Sci
lit/num.
Hierarc
Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as
scil
-lit/numeracy increases
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Egal
Comm
High
Sci
lit/numeracy
Hierarch
Individ
Low
Sci
/lit numeracy
Egal
Comm
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
.Slide70
very high riskNo risk at allScience literacy score
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical IndividualistHow much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?)
4 counties: science literacy, culture & climate change risk perceptions
N
= 2,000. Fitted regression valuesSlide71
Communicating NormalitySlide72
Communicating NormalitySlide73Slide74Slide75
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
:
motivated reasoning
* to the ordinary citizen: the normality/banality
of
climate science
* to the ordinary decisionmaker:
normal
climate science
Slide76
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan ExperimentGo to www.culturalcognition.net!