Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: [email protected] papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net. www.culturalcognition.net. What does the science of science communication have to say about the climate change conflict?. Dan M. Kahan Yale University. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: [email protected]
papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net
Dan M. KahanYale University
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714 & SES-06021840
www.culturalcognition.net
What does the science of science communication have to say about the climate change conflict?
1. What the source of the problem isn’t
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. Local engagement b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. Local engagement b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
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?”
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
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.
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”)
“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, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
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
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
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
-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
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.
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. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. Local engagement b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. Local engagement b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
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
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
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Environment: climate, nuclear
-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%
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
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 ...
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is: motivated reasoning
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. Local engagement b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
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
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?”
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
Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?
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.
-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)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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
High Sci lit/numeracy
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
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.
-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?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-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
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.
-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?”
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
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
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
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal 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.
-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?”
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
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
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
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal 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.
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. change places, change teams b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
: motivated reasoning
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. change places, change teams b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
: motivated reasoning
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
4. Experimental response items
A. Evidence Skepticism Module
13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?
Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]
14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
Climate change
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
Climate change
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Control Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Anti-pollution Condition
Geoengineering Condition
4. Experimental response items
A. Evidence Skepticism Module
13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?
Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]
14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
Anti-pollution Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Geoengineering Condition
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
anti-pollution
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
control pollution geoengineering
more polarization
lesspolarization
Polarizationz_
Stud
y di
smiss
2
anti-pollution
1. What the source of the problem isn’t: public irrationality thesis (PIT)
2. What the source of the problem is
3. What “ ‘isn’t’ & ‘is’ ” imply for climate-change communication
a. change places, change teams b. evidence-based communication: lab models to … field models
The Science Communication Problem
: motivated reasoning
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
