Culturally Contested Facts:

Culturally Contested Facts:
Culturally Contested Facts: One Good Explanation, Three Not so Good Ones, and a Fitting Solution Dan M. Kahan Yale University & 10^3 others!

Culturally contested facts . . .

“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” r = , p < 0.01

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [true/false] .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 -1.8 -1 1.8 left_right Probability of correct response Very liberal Strong Democrat Liberal Democrat Moderate Independent Conservative Republican Very Conservative Strong Republican Left_right Data source: CCP/Annenberg Public Policy Cntr, Jan. 5-19, N = Logistic regression. “Left_right” scale comprises responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-identification measures. Bars denote 0.95 CIs.

“ human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .” [True or False] .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 -1.8 -1 1.8 left_right Probability of correct response Very liberal Strong Democrat Liberal Democrat Moderate Independent Conservative Republican Very Conservative Strong Republican Left_right Data source: CCP/Annenberg Public Policy Cntr, Jan. 5-19, N = 785. Logistic regression. “Left_right” scale comprises responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-identification measures. Bars denote 0.95 CIs.

“. nuclear power generation contributes to global warming
“. . . nuclear power generation contributes to global warming.” [True or False] .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1 -1.8 -1 1.8 left_right Probability of correct response Very liberal Strong Democrat Liberal Democrat Moderate Independent Conservative Republican Very Conservative Strong Republican Left_right Data source: CCP/Annenberg Public Policy Cntr, Jan. 5-19, N = 785. Logistic regression. “Left_right” scale comprises responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-identification measures. Bars denote 0.95 CIs.

“How much risk do you believe global warming poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” r = , p < 0.01

“How much risk do you believe fracking poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” r = , p < 0.01

“How much risk do you believe private gun possession poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” r = , p < 0.01

One good explanation: identity-protective cognition Three not so good ones … A. Science denial B. Public irrationality thesis (PIT) C. Misinformation One fitting solution: Science curiosity

One good explanation Three not so good ones … A. Science denial B. Public irrationality thesis (PIT) C. Misinformation One fitting solution: Science curiosity

One good explanation: identity-protective cognition

r = , p < 0.01

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

Source: Kahan, D. M. , Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientfiic Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, (2011).

Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism

(Science inconclusive)
Climate Change High Risk (Science conclusive) Low Risk (Science inconclusive)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes
High Risk (not safe) Low Risk (safe)

Concealed Carry Laws High Risk (Increase crime) Low Risk (Decrease Crime)

Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist
Featured Scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... Egalitarian Communitarian More Likely to Agree Hierarchical Individualist More Likely to Agree Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response 60% 40% 20% % 40% 60% 54% Climate Change 72% 22% Nuclear Power 31% 58% Concealed Carry 61% 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

How much more likely to believe
“What is the position of expert Scientists?” How much more likely to believe 57% Global temperatures are increasing. 12x 3x Human activity is causing global warming. 6x 5x Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities. Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.

Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism

One good explanation: identity-protective cognition

One good explanation: identity-protective cognition Three not so good ones … A. Science denial B. Public irrationality thesis (PIT) C. Misinformation One fitting solution Science curiosity

perceived risk (z-score)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: knowledge deficit & Bounded Rationality Greater perceived risk (z-score) Lesser low high Science comprehension 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, (2012).

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: knowledge deficit & Bounded Rationality Greater High SCS. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”) perceived risk (z-score) Low SCS. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”) Lesser low high Science comprehension 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, (2012).

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Greater Risk PIT prediction PIT prediction actual variance actual variance perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Risk low high low high Science literacy Numeracy 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, (2012).

Hierarch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT variance CCT variance Greater Greater perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Lesser Low High Hierarch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Mine is bigger! PIT variance CCT variance Greater Greater perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Lesser Low High Hierarch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” What is relationship of PIT & CCT So what! PIT variance CCT variance Greater Greater perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Lesser Low High Hierarch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute PIT variance CCT variance Greater Greater perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Lesser Low High Hierarch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Greater Egalitarian Communitarian perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Hierarchical Individualist Lesser Lesser Low High Low High Science comprehension Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Greater Low SCS/lit numeracy Egal Comm Egalitarian Communitarian High SCS lit/numeracy Egal Comm perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Hierarchical Individualist Lesser Lesser Low High Low High Science comprehension Science comprehension 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.

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Greater Low SCS/lit numeracy Egal Comm Egalitarian Communitarian High SCS lit/numeracy Egal Comm perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Low SCS lit/num. Hierarc Individ High SCS lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ Hierarchical Individualist Lesser Lesser Low High Low High Science comprehension Science comprehension 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.

POLARIZATION INCREASES as Science comprehension increases
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” POLARIZATION INCREASES as Science comprehension increases PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Greater Low SCS/lit numeracy Egal Comm Egalitarian Communitarian High SCS lit/numeracy Egal Comm High SCS lit/numeracy mean perceived risk (z-score) perceived risk (z-score) Low SCS lit/numeracy sample mean Low SCS lit/num. Hierarc Individ High SCS lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ Hierarchical Individualist Lesser Lesser Low High Low High Science comprehension Science comprehension 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.

N = 1688. shaded areas denote 0.95 CIs.

Conservative Republican
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree] Liberal Democrat Probability of “agree” Conservative Republican Ordinary Science Intelligence (percentile) N = shaded areas denote 0.95 CIs.

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree] Liberal Democrat Probability of “agree” Conservative Republican Actively Open-minded Thinking (zscore) N= 750. Derived from logistic regression. Colored barsdenote 0.95 CIs.

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree] Liberal Democrat Probability of “agree” Conservative Republican Cognitive Reflection Test (no. correct) N = Brackets denote 0.95 CIs.

N = 1756. Shaded area denote 0.95 CIs.

N = 1759. Shaded area denote 0.95 CIs.

Motivated System 2 reasoning

“Skin cream experiment”

“Gun ban experiment”

“Skin cream experiment”


“Gun control experiment”


Four conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gun ban Low numeracy High numeracy skin treatment
Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) high numeracy = 7 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Hierarch individid (+1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) Low numeracy High numeracy EC rash increases HI rash increases HI rash increases HI rash decreases HI rash decreases EC rash decreases EC rash increases skin treatment EC rash decreases HI crime decrease HI crime increase EC crime increase HI crime increase EC crime decrease EC crime decrease Gun ban EC crime increase HI crime decrease probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

not too little rationality . . .

not too little rationality . . . but too much

tragedy of the Science communications commons

Theories of misinformation and mass opinion formation
The passive aggregator model: Culturally/Eco- nomically motivated interest groups misinformation supply Credulous Public The motivated-public model: demand for information Culturally Motivated Public Opportunistic Misinformers

Featured Scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
climate change

Nuclear power

Concealed Carry

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

The passive aggregator model: misinformation supply
Theories of misinformation and mass opinion formation The passive aggregator model: Culturally/Eco- nomically motivated interest groups misinformation supply Credulous Public

Theories of misinformation and mass opinion formation
The passive aggregator model: Culturally/Eco- nomically motivated interest groups misinformation supply Credulous Public The motivated-public model: demand for information Culturally Motivated Public Opportunistic Misinformers

Advances in Political Psychology

Performance measure

YIF Clip: Origins of color vision

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

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

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

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

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

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

How can Science curiosity be used to fight a polluted Science communication environment?

You tell me!

Evidence-based Policy Science Communication Initiative

You tell me!

You tell me! & I’ll measure

www. culturalcognition.net
“I am you!” 124

shifting the curiosity curve
How can Science curiosity be used to fight a polluted Science communication environment? shifting the curiosity curve Science Curiosity Scale

Culturally Contested Facts:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Culturally Contested Facts:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Culturally Contested Facts:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Culturally Contested Facts:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback