1. Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edudan.kahan@yale.edu papers,etc: www.culturalcognition.netwww.culturalcognition.net

2. Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES—0922714 www.culturalcognition.net “Motivated System 2 Reasoning”: Rationality in a Polluted Science Communication Environmet

3. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

4. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

6. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

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

8. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

9. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

10. Three studies

12. Perceived risk Science comprehension Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Low High Science comprehension PIT PredictionActual Response Greater Lesser Greater Lesser 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.

13. Perceived risk Science comprehension Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Low High Science comprehension PIT PredictionActual Response Greater Lesser Greater Lesser 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.

14. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Cultural Cognition Worldviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

24. Three studies

25. Kahan, D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407-424 (2013).

34. Three studies

36. “Skin cream experiment”

38. Two conditions

39. Correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data. correct incorrect Numeracy score

40. numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data. Numeracy

41. “Gun ban experiment”

42. Four conditions

43. Correct interpretation of data Gun ban skin treatment Numeracy score

44. Correct interpretation of data skin treatment Gun ban Numeracy score

45. Numeracy Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures. score Enitre sample score by political outlooks

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

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

48. N = 1111. Outcome variable is “Correct” (0 = incorrect interpretation of data, 1 = correct interpretation). Predictor estimates are logit coefficients with z-test statistic indicated parenthetically. Experimental assignment predictors— rash_decrease, rash_increase, and crime_increase—are dummy variables (0 = unassigned, 1 = assigned—with assignment to “crime decreases” as the comparison condition. Z_numeracy and Conserv_Repub are centered at 0 for ease of interpretation. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient is significant at p < 0.05. Best fitting regression model for experiment results rash_decrease0.40(1.57) rash increase0.06(0.22) crime increase1.07(4.02) z_numeracy-0.01(-0.05) z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease0.55(2.29) z_numeracy_x_rash_increase0.23(1.05) z_numeracy_x_crime_increase0.46(2.01) z_numeracy20.31(2.46) z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease0.02(0.14) z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase-0.07(-0.39) z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase-0.31(-1.75) Conserv_Repub-0.64(-3.95) Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease0.56(2.64) Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase1.28(6.02) Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase0.63(2.82) z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub-0.33(-1.89) z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease0.33(1.40) z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase0.54(2.17) z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase0.26(1.08) _constant-0.96(-4.70)

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

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

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

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

53. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

54. A.The tragedy of the science communication commons B.The pathology of antagonistic meanings C.The science communication environment as a collective good One synthesis

55. The science communication problem

56. Not too little rationality, but too much.

57. The science communication problem Not too little rationality, but too much.

58. A.The tragedy of the science communication commons B.The pathology of antagonistic meanings C.The science communication environment as a collective good One synthesis

59. The science communication problem Not too little rationality, but too much.

60. The science communication problem

61. The science communication problem is not normal

62. This is normal

63. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Hierarchy Egalitarianism Communitarianism Individualism Science comprehension scores very low very high very low very high very low very high very low very high

64. Normal Pathological

65. A.The tragedy of the science communication commons B.The pathology of antagonistic meanings C.The science communication environment as a collective good One synthesis

66. Normal Pathological

67. Normal Polluted science communication environment

68. Unpolluted science communication enviornment Polluted science communication environment

69. “Scicomm# enviornment Protection”

70. “Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying

72. Ann. Am. Acad. Pol. & Social Sci. (in press)

73. “Scicomm# enviornment Protection” “Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying “Adaptation”: Fortifying reason

74. A.The tragedy of the science communication commons B.The pathology of antagonistic meanings C.The science communication environment as a collective good One synthesis

76. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

77. Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Donald Braman George Washington University John Gastil University of Washington Geoffrey Cohen Stanford University Paul Slovic University of Oregon Ellen Peters Ohio State University Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma David Hoffman Temple Law School Gregory Mandel Temple Law School Maggie Wittlin Cultural Cognition Project Lab Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette Cultural Cognition Project Lab Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Project Lab June Carbone Univ. Missouri-Kansas CCTy Michael Jones Virginia Tech University Naomi Cahn George Washington University Jeffrey Rachlinksi Cornell Law School John Byrnes Cultural Cognition Project Lab John Monahan University of Virginia

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