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. The Science of Science Communication: An Environmental Protection Conception www.culturalcognition.net

3. The science of science communication: 1.The sci-comm “environmental protection” problem 2.Sci-comm environmental protection as a public good vs. the “science comprehension” problem “culturally antagonistic meaning” as pollution government: a sci-comm EPA universities: the science of science communication as new political science NGOs: integrating theory and practice

4. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

5. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) SC prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality High Sci. litearcy/System 2 Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

6. Lesser Risk Greater Risk Science literacy Numeracy low high perceived risk (z-score) lowhigh SC prediction actual variance U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

7. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Cultural Variance Hierarchical Individualist Egalitarian Communitarian Science-comprehension variance

8. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egalitarian Communitarian SC prediction: Cultural cognition as heuristic substitute Hierarchical Individualist

9. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. High Sci lit/numeracy Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ Scilit/num Scale low high High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ Culture—science-comprehension Interaction:

10. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. High Sci lit/numeracy Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Scilit/num Scale low high Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases Culture—science-comprehension Interaction:

11. The science of science communication: 1.The sci-comm “environmental protection” problem 2.Sci-comm environmental protection as a public good vs. the “science comprehension” problem “culturally antagonistic meaning” as pollution government: a sci-comm EPA universities: the science of science communication as new political science NGOs: integrating theory and practice

12. A tale of two vaccines …

13. Oct. 2005… Oct. 2011

15. 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

16. The science of science communication: 1.The sci-comm “environmental protection” problem 2.Sci-comm environmental protection as a public good vs. the “science comprehension” problem “culturally antagonistic meaning” as pollution government: a sci-comm EPA universities: the science of science communication as new political science NGOs: integrating theory and practice

17. “How much risk do you believe... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” (0, “no risk at all”; 10, “extreme risk)

18. 61% 86%* 23%* Experimental Condition No information Information-exposed 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Perceived benefits > risks Nanotechnology’s pathological future? Egalitarian communitarian Hierarchical Individualist “How much risk do you believe... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” (0, “no risk at all”; 10, “extreme risk”)

19. The science of science communication: 1.The sci-comm “environmental protection” problem 2.Sci-comm environmental protection as a public good vs. the “science comprehension” problem “culturally antagonistic meaning” as pollution government: a sci-comm EPA universities: the science of science communication as new political science NGOs: integrating theory and practice

21. The science of science communication: 1.The sci-comm “environmental protection” problem 2.Sci-comm environmental protection as a public good vs. the “science comprehension” problem “culturally antagonistic meaning” as pollution government: a sci-comm EPA universities: the science of science communication as new political science NGOs: integrating theory and practice