1. What Is “Cultural Cognition”? I’ll Show You! www.culturalcognition.net

2. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

4. Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

5. Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

6. Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

7. Select fact perception items Case-outcome items

8. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews

9. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator Hypotheses “Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

10. Pct. Agree Sample-wide Responses

11. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

12. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

13. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

14. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

15. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

16. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

17. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

18. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator “Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization” Hypotheses

19. Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

20. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator pro_protestor (z-score) N = 196. Dependent variable is pro_protestor (z-score). Bold denotes significant at p < 0.05

21. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

22. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

24. Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

25. 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

26. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Environment: climate, nuclear

27. Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

28. High Risk (science conclusive) Low Risk (science inconclusive) Climate Change

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

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

31. 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 Concealed Carry Climate Change Nuclear Power 31% 54% 22% 58% 61% 72% Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response 60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60% Egalitarian Communitarian More Likely to Agree Hierarchical Individualist More Likely to Agree Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on...

32. Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

33. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Concealed carry bans

34. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews Individualism Communitarianism Climate change Nuclear waste disposal Perceived Scientific Consensus: Low Risk High Risk Concealed carry bans

35. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

36. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

37. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

39. The “public irrationality thesis” (PIT) 1.Science illiteracy 2.“Bounded rationality” The “Public Irrationality Thesis” 1 + 2 + 3 =

40. “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, 2, 732-35 (2012). Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) 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.

41. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality 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, 2, 732-35 (2012). 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.

42. Lesser Risk Greater Risk Science literacy Numeracy low high perceived risk (z-score) lowhigh PIT prediction actual variance “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, 2, 732-35 (2012). 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.

43. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “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 Hierarchical Individualist Egalitarian Communitarian 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. Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?

44. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egalitarian Communitarian PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute Hierarchical 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.

45. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “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 High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ 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.

46. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” 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... 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.

47. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” 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 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.

48. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

50. “Skin cream experiment”

52. Two conditions

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

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

55. “Gun ban experiment”

56. Four conditions

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

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

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

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

61. 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)

62. 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)

63. 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)

64. 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

65. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” 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 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.

66. 1.“They Saw a Protest” 2.Scientific consensus 3.Science literacy & climate change polarization 4."Politically motivated" numeracy Four Studies....

67. 1.What explains the science communication problem? 2.How can we fix it? Why should we care? What is cultural cognition? So what should we do?