1. Informing Public Perceptions of Risk and Other Legally Consequential Facts www. culturalcognition.net Dan M. Kahan Yale University & many others

2. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

4. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions

5. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions

6. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions

7. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions

8. HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions

9. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

10. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Risk > Benefit Benefit > Risk

11. 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design

12. 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design

13. No Argument Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

14. No Argument Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

15. 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design

16. 1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel  Hierarchy-egalitarianism  Individualism-communitarianism  5 individual risk/benefit items  Risk overall, benefit overall  Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale” 1.No-argument (n = 250) 2.Balanced Arguments (n = 250) 3.Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022) Sample Cultural Worldviews HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions Conditions HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design

17. Culturally Identifiable Experts Hierarchy Egalitarianism Communitarianism Individualism

18. No Argument Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment

19. No Argument Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment

20. No Argument Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Pluralistic Argument Environment Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

21. No Argument Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Pluralistic Argument Environment Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

22. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

23. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Mary Douglas’s Group-grid worldview scheme compulsory psychiatric treatment Abortion procedure compulsory psychiatric treatment Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

24. 1.Culturally motivated search & assimilation 2.Cultural source credibility effect 3.Cultural availability effect 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, 87-91 (2009) Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (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, 501-516 (2010)

26. “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, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547. 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.

27. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”) Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”) 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. 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?”

28. 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, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547. 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.

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

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

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

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

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

34. 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, 87-91 (2009) Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (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, 501-516 (2010) 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 Climate Change, advance on line publication, doi:10.1038/nclimate1547 (2012).

35. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

36. A tale of two vaccines …

37. Culturally Identifiable Experts Source: 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 Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010). Hierarchy Egalitarianism Communitarianism Individualism

38. No Argument Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Pluralistic Argument Environment Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

39. Oct. 2005… Oct. 2011

40. No Argument Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment Pluralistic Argument Environment Balanced Argument Pct. Agree “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”

41. Oct. 2005… Oct. 2011

42. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

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

45. Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

46. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

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

49. 1.How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection? 2.How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact? 3.Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition? 4.Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations— that might help to mitigate cultural cognition? 5.How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions? 6.How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures? Judicial management of cultural cognition

51. 1.How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection? 2.How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact? 3.Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition? 4.Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations— that might help to mitigate cultural cognition? 5.How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions? 6.How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures? Judicial management of cultural cognition

54. Deadly force warranted by lethal risk posed by driver Monte carlo simulation (m = 3,000) Likelihood of agreeing with S. Ct. majority

55. 1.How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection? 2.How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact? 3.Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition? 4.Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations— that might help to mitigate cultural cognition? 5.How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions? 6.How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures? Judicial management of cultural cognition

56. What am I talking about? 0. Introductory study 1. Cultural cognition generally 2. The communication of risk 3. The adjudication of facts

57. Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

58. Balanced information, benefits & risks

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

61. study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

62. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Climate change Cultural Cognition Worldviews Communitarianism Climate change Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk

63. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

64. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

65. Control Condition

66. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

67. Anti-pollution Condition

68. Geoengineering Condition

69. study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

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

71. Anti-pollution Condition

72. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

73. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

74. Geoengineering Condition

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

76. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

77. z_Study dismiss 2 Dismiss Credit Study dismissiveness Hierarch Individ Egal Commun anti-pollution

78. more polarization less polarization Polarization z_Study dismiss 2 anti-pollution

80. 1.Two hypotheses 2.Data 3.Tragedy of the risk perception commons 4.Two-channel communication strategy The science communication problem... Kahan D.M., Jenkins-Smith, J., Taranotola, T., Silva C., & Braman, D., Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-cultural Study, CCP Working Paper No. 92 (Jan. 9, 2012).

81. Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment Go to www.culturalcognition.net!