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

2. Communicating Science in a Polluted Science Communication Environment
Communicating Science in a Polluted Science Communication Environment
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
& many x 103 others

4. “Skin cream experiment”

5. “Skin cream experiment”

6. Two conditions

7. Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
incorrect
Numeracy score
Lowess regression line.

8. Covariance & Numeracy
Derived via logistic regression. Bars denote 0.95 CIs.

9. “Gun ban experiment”

10. “Gun control experiment”

11. Four conditions

12. Correct interpretation of data
skin treatment
Numeracy score
Gun ban
Lowess regression line.

13. Correct interpretation of data
skin treatment
Numeracy score
Gun ban
Numeracy score
Lowess regression line.

14. Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Numeracy score
Gun ban

15. Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Numeracy score
Numeracy Score
Gun ban

17. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
skin treatment
rash increases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

18. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
35%, ± 10
skin treatment
rash increases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

19. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
skin treatment
rash increases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

20. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
5%, ± 6
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decrease
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

21. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

22. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

23. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

24. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

25. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
rash increases
skin treatment 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
crime increases
80%
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

26. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

27. Bounded Rationality Thesis (BRT)

28. Conservative Republican
“How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
Adapted from Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).

29. Conservative Republican
“How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
Adapted from Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).

30. Conservative Republican
“How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).

31. Conservative Republican
“How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).

32. Conservative Republican
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D.M. Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem. Advances in Political Psychology 36, 1-43 (2015).

33. Conservative Republican Conservative Republican
BRT prediction
Reality
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
Conservative Republican
Actively Open-minded Thinking (z-score)
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D. M., Corbin, Res. & Politics (2016), doi: /

34. Conservative Republican
BRT prediction
Reality
Liberal Democrat
Conservative Republican
conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D. M., Advances in Pol. Psych, 36, 1-43 (2015), doi: /pops

35. Conservative Republican
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D. M., Advances in Pol. Psych, 36, 1-43 (2015), doi: /pops

36. Conservative Republican
BRT prediction
Reality
Conservative Republican
shaded area denotes 0.95 CI
Adapted from Kahan, D. M., Advances in Pol. Psych, 36, 1-43 (2015), doi: /pops

37. Monte carlo simulations
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 7 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100% 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data

38. Bounded rationality thesis

39. not too little rationality . . .

40. not too little rationality . . . but too much

41. tragedy of the science communications commons

42. not too little rationality . . .

43. not too little rationality . . . but too much

44. tragedy of the science communications commons
is not normal

45. tragedy of the science communications commons
is pathological

46. tragedy of the science communications commons
is pathological

47. = polluted science communication environment
tragedy of the science communications commons
= polluted science communication environment

48. Two strategies for communicating in a polluted science communication environment:

49. Two strategies for communicating in a polluted science communication environment:
1. Detoxification

50. Two strategies for communicating in a polluted science communication environment:
1. Detoxification
2. Adaptation

51. Two studies . . .

52. Two studies . . .

53. Two studies . . .

54. Two Channel Communication Strategy
channel 1: content
Risk
Perception
Information
channel 2: meaning

55. Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Individualism
Communitarianism
Egalitarianism

56. Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
Gays military/gay parenting
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Marijuana legalization
Guns/Gun Control
cats/annoying varmints
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
Marijuana legalization
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
HPV Vaccination
cats/annoying varmints
Egalitarianism

58. study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

59. Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
dismiss study
Individualism
Communitarianism
credit study
Egalitarianism

60. Control Condition

61. Anti-pollution Condition

62. Geoengineering Condition

64. Two Channel Communication Strategy
channel 1: content
Risk
Perception
Information
channel 2: meaning

65. Anti-pollution Condition

66. Study dismissiveness Study dismissiveness Study dismiss Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Egal Commun
Egal Commun
Credit
Credit
anti-pollution
anti-pollution

67. Study dismissiveness Study dismissiveness Study dismiss Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Egal Commun
Egal Commun
Credit
Credit
anti-pollution
anti-pollution

68. Geoengineering Condition

69. Study dismissiveness Study dismissiveness Study dismiss Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Egal Commun
Egal Commun
Credit
Credit
anti-pollution
anti-pollution

70. Study dismissiveness Study dismissiveness Study dismiss Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Study dismiss
Hierarch Individ
Egal Commun
Egal Commun
Credit
Credit
anti-pollution
anti-pollution

71. Polarization more polarization Study dismiss (z-score) less
anti-pollution

72. Two Channel Communication Strategy
channel 1: content
Risk
Perception
Information
channel 2: meaning

73. Two studies . . .

74. Two studies . . .

76. State of the art “Science Curiosity”/“curiosity”
Test of Science Related Attitudes (TOSRA)
I am curious about the world in which we live
I find it boring to hear about new ideas
I would enjoy visiting a science museum at the weekend
I would like to be given a science book as a present
I get bored when watching science programs on TV

77. Sample self-report item

78. Performance measure

79. “Science Curiosity Scale” (SCS_1.0 )
(item response theory 2PL)
Science Curiosity Scale (SCSI)
Science Curiosity Scale (SCS)

80. YIF Clip: Origins of color vision

82. Robustness of SCS Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Mass Extinction: Life at the Brink

83. SCS, percentile
SCS, percentile

84. Robustness of SCS Darwin’s Dangerous Idea
Mass Extinction: Life at the Brink
Daily Hollywood Rundown

85. SCS, percentile
SCS, percentile

86. SCS, percentile
SCS, percentile

88. Q. Are “curious” partisans more likely to examine surprising contrary evidence?

89. Q. Are “curious” partisans more likely to examine surprising contrary evidence?
1. believer unsurprising vs. skeptical surprising
2. believer surprising vs. skeptical unsurprising

90. Q. Are “curious” partisans more likely to examine surprising contrary evidence?
1. believer unsurprising vs. skeptical surprising
2. believer surprising vs. skeptical unsurprising

91. Probability of selecting surprising skeptical vs
Probability of selecting surprising skeptical vs. unsurprising believer story
.25 .5
.75 1

92. below avg. science curiosity
Probability of selecting surprising skeptical vs. unsurprising believer story
24% (± 18%)
Liberal Dem.
below avg. science curiosity

93. above avg. science curiosity below avg. science curiosity
Probability of selecting surprising skeptical vs. unsurprising believer story
24% (± 18%)
68% (±20%)
Liberal Dem.
above avg. science curiosity
Liberal Dem.
below avg. science curiosity

94. below avg. science curiosity above avg. science curiosity
Probability of selecting surprising believer vs. unsurprising skeptical story
.25 .5
.75 1
42% (± 13)
62% (± 12%)
Conser. Repub.
below avg. science curiosity
Conser. Repub.
above avg. science curiosity

95. How can the two-channel model and science curiosity be used to fight a polluted science communication environment?

96. Science curiosity as adaptation strategy. . .
shifting the curve
Science Curiosity Scale

97. How can the two-channel model and science curiosity be used to fight a polluted science communication environment?
You tell me!