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

Culture, Rationality, and Climate Change: the Tragedy of the Risk-Perceptions Commons

1.Two hypotheses 2.Data 3.Tragedy of the risk perception commons Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion

Two Hypotheses 1.Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT) 2.Cultural cognition thesis (CCT) “science illiteracy” “bounded rationality”

1.Two hypotheses 2.Data 3.Tragedy of the risk perception commons Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality High Sci. litearcy/System 2 Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

Lesser Risk Greater Risk Science literacy Numeracy low high perceived risk (z-score) lowhigh PIT prediction actual variance U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. PIT prediction Scilit/num Scale low high Actual variance Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy

Two Hypotheses 1.Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT) 2.Cultural cognition thesis (CCT) “science illiteracy” “bounded rationality”

Climate Change Nuclear Power Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Risk Perception Key: Low Risk High Risk Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Environmental Risk Abortion Compulsory psychiatric treatment Compulsory psychiatriatic treatment Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Egalitarian Communitarian Individualist Hierarchist

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Cultural Variance Hierarchical Individualist Egalitarian Communitarian

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egalitarian Communitarian PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute Hierarchical Individualist

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. 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

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. 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...

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. 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

1.Two hypotheses 2.Data 3.Tragedy of the risk perception commons Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion

1.Culturally motivated search & assimilation 2.Cultural source credibility effect 3.Cultural availability effect 4.Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning Mechanisms of cultural cognition Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 4, (2009) Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, (2011) 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 Evidence (mechanisms). L. & Human Behavior 34, (2010) Kahan, D.M., Wittlin, M, Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman D. & Mandel, G. The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons, CCP Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011))

Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. 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

1.Culturally motivated search & assimilation 2.Cultural source credibility effect 3.Cultural availability effect 4.Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning Mechanisms of cultural cognition Kahan, D.M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology 4, (2009) Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, (2011) 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 Evidence (mechanisms). L. & Human Behavior 34, (2010) Kahan, D.M., Wittlin, M, Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman D. & Mandel, G. The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons, CCP Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011))

1.Two hypotheses 2.Data 3.Tragedy of the risk perception commons Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion

Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment Go to