Upload
casper
View
56
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. . www.culturalcognition.net. Decision-relevant Science: Who Distrusts Whom About What and Why?. Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many many others!. Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
www.culturalcognition.net
Decision-relevant Science: Who Distrusts Whom About What and Why?
Dan M. KahanYale University
& many many others!
Research Supported by:National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -
0242106
Trust and the science communication problem
Public opinion: federal govt should fund scienceAgree or disagree?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Public opinion: federal govt should fund scienceAgree or disagree?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Federal support for science research
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Level of support for science researchU.S. Public Opinion
Public opinion: amount of federal funding?Too little or too much?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Public opinion: amount of federal funding?Too little or too much?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Federal support for science research
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
Level of support for science researchU.S. Public Opinion
Public opinion: amount of federal funding?Too little or too much?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?
happy
unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1983 2001 2012
perc
ent
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?
happy
unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1983 2001 2012
happy
perc
ent
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?
happy
unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1983 2001 2012
happy
perc
ent
(boy)(girl)
unhappy
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?
happy
unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1983 2001 2012
happy
perc
ent
(boy)(girl)
unhappy
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
How would you feel if son/daughter grew up to be a scientist?
happy
unhappy (boy)unhappy (girl)
0
20
40
60
80
100
1983 2001 2012
happy
perc
ent
(boy)(girl)
unhappy
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
0102030405060708090
100
Agree disagree Agree disagree
“scientists are helping to solve challenging problems”
“scientists are dedicated people who work for the good of humanity”
Are scientists public spirited?
source: NSF Science & Engineering Indicators 2014, ch. 7.
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
%
Trust and the science communication problem
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other.
3. When facts become entangled in conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other.
3. When facts become entangled in conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other
3. When facts become entangled in conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups,
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
marijuana legalization
marijuana legalization
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun ControlGays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclearhierarchical communitarians
egalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
egalitarian communitarians
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
cats/annoying varmints
cats/annoying varmints
hierarchical individualists
abortion protestors/war protesotrs
abortion protestors/war protesotrs
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Environment: climate, nuclear
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 National Academy of Sciences
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 National Academy of Sciences
“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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“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 National Academy of Sciences
“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 National Academy of Sciences
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 RiskHigh 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%
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
Nucl
ear W
aste
Gun
Con
trol
Low RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Climate change
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste disposal
Concealed carry bans
Concealed carry bans
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Individualism Communitarianism
Climate change
Climate change
Nuclear waste disposal
Nuclear waste disposal
Perceived Scientific Consensus:Low RiskHigh Risk
Concealed carry bans
Concealed carry bans
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
HPV Vaccination
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
HPV Vaccination
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
No Argument BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
Culturally Identifiable Experts
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
47%
56%
61%
71%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
47%
56%
61%
71%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
BalancedArgument
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
47%
56%
61%61%
71%
66%
70%
58%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
BalancedArgument
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Pct.
Agre
e“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advoc ate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpec ted Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/Ar gumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
4. Prescription:
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
4. Prescription: To translate public trust in science into convergence on science-informed policy,
Trust and the science communication problem
1. Members of the public do trust scientists.
2. Members of culturally opposing groups distrust each other when they perceive their status is at risk.
3. When facts become entangled in status conflicts between culturally opposing groups, members of the public will form divergent perceptions of what scientists believe.
4. Prescription: To translate public trust in science into convergence on science-informed policy, protect decision-relevant science from entanglement in culturally antagonisitic meanings!
Trust and the science communication problem
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
marijuana legalization
marijuana legalization
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
HPV vaccination
HPV vaccination
abortion protestors/war protesotrs
abortion protestors/war protesotrs
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dta p
MMR ≥1 doses
Poliovi rus
HebB
none
0%2%4 %6%8%
1 0%1 2%1 4%1 6%1 8%2 0%2 2%2 4%2 6%2 8%3 0%3 2%3 4%3 6%3 8%4 0%4 2%4 4%4 6%4 8%5 0%5 2%5 4%5 6%5 8%6 0%6 2%6 4%6 6%6 8%7 0%7 2%7 4%7 6%7 8%8 0%8 2%8 4%8 6%8 8%9 0%9 2%9 4%9 6%9 8%
1 0 0%
2 0 02 2 0 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 2 00 9 2 01 0 2 01 1 2 01 2
Dtap
M MR ≥1 d o ses
P o lio vi ru s
He bB
n o ne
year
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100 %
2002 200 3 2004 2005 2006 20 07 2 008 200 9 2010 2011 201 2
Dtap
MMR ≥ 1 doses
Poliovir us
HBV ≥ 3 doses
none
HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dta p
MMR ≥1 doses
Poliovi rus
HebB
none
0%2%4 %6%8%
1 0%1 2%1 4%1 6%1 8%2 0%2 2%2 4%2 6%2 8%3 0%3 2%3 4%3 6%3 8%4 0%4 2%4 4%4 6%4 8%5 0%5 2%5 4%5 6%5 8%6 0%6 2%6 4%6 6%6 8%7 0%7 2%7 4%7 6%7 8%8 0%8 2%8 4%8 6%8 8%9 0%9 2%9 4%9 6%9 8%
1 0 0%
2 0 02 2 0 0 3 20 0 4 20 0 5 20 0 6 20 0 7 20 0 8 2 00 9 2 01 0 2 01 1 2 01 2
Dtap
M MR ≥1 d o ses
P o lio vi ru s
He bB
n o ne
year
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100 %
2002 200 3 2004 2005 2006 20 07 2 008 200 9 2010 2011 201 2
Dtap
MMR ≥ 1 doses
Poliovir us
HBV ≥ 3 doses
none
HPV vaccine . . . . . . HBV vaccine
pertussis
polio
MMR
childhood (19-35 mos.) vaccination coverage
85%
90%
95%
100%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
HBV
June 2006
Feb. 2007
Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…
vs.
June 2006
Feb. 2007
Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…
June 2006
Feb. 2007
Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…
Oct. 2009
Oct. 2009
0%2%4%6%8%
10 %12%14%16%18%20 %22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36 %38%40%42 %44%46%48%50%52 %54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68 %70%72%74 %76%78%80%82%84 %86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100%
2 002 20 03 20 04 2 005 2 006 20 07 2 008 2 009 2010 2011 2 012
Dtap
MMR ≥1 doses
P oliovi rus
HebB
n one
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100 %
2002 2003 20 04 2005 2006 20 07 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012
D tapM MR ≥1 do ses
Po lio vir us
H ebB
no ne
year
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12 %14 %16 %18 %20 %22 %24 %26 %28%30 %32%34 %36 %38 %40 %42%44 %46 %48 %50 %52 %54 %56 %58 %60%62 %64%66 %68 %70 %72 %74%76 %78 %80 %82 %84 %86 %88 %90 %92%94 %96%98 %
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dtap
MMR ≥ 1 doses
Pol iov irus
HBV ≥3 doses none
Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…
Oct. 2009
0%2%4%6%8%
10 %12%14%16%18%20 %22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36 %38%40%42 %44%46%48%50%52 %54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68 %70%72%74 %76%78%80%82%84 %86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100%
2 002 20 03 20 04 2 005 2 006 20 07 2 008 2 009 2010 2011 2 012
Dtap
MMR ≥1 doses
P oliovi rus
HebB
n one
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12%14%16%18%20%22%24%26%28%30%32%34%36%38%40%42%44%46%48%50%52%54%56%58%60%62%64%66%68%70%72%74%76%78%80%82%84%86%88%90%92%94%96%98%
100 %
2002 2003 20 04 2005 2006 20 07 2008 2009 20 10 2011 2012
D tapM MR ≥1 do ses
Po lio vir us
H ebB
no ne
year
0%2%4%6%8%
10%12 %14 %16 %18 %20 %22 %24 %26 %28%30 %32%34 %36 %38 %40 %42%44 %46 %48 %50 %52 %54 %56 %58 %60%62 %64%66 %68 %70 %72 %74%76 %78 %80 %82 %84 %86 %88 %90 %92%94 %96%98 %
100%
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Dtap
MMR ≥ 1 doses
Pol iov irus
HBV ≥3 doses none
Merck’s Gardasil marketing strategy…
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Source: Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Cohen, G.L., Gastil, J. & Slovic, P. Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study of the Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
J. Am. Med. Ass’n 297, 1921-1923 (2007)
Oct. 2005…
Oct. 2007Oct. 2007
Trust and the science communication problem
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!