45
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. Download paper here .
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
Download paper here.
www.culturalcognition.net
Culture, Rationality, and Risk Perception: the Tragedy of the Science-Communication
Commons
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School
Dan M. Kahan Yale University
& many many others!
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
4. Two-channel communication strategy
The science communication problem . . .
Two Hypotheses
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
• “science illiteracy”• “bounded rationality”
The science communication problem . . .
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
4. Two-channel communication strategy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“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
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
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, 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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
Lesser Risk
Greater Risk
Science literacy Numeracylow high
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
low high
PIT prediction PIT prediction
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
actual varianceactual variance
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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.
PIT prediction
Scilit/num Scalelow high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Actual variance
Low Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/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, advance online publication (2012), doi:10.1038/nclimate1547.
Two Hypotheses
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
• “science illiteracy”• “bounded rationality”
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Mary Douglas’s Group-grid worldview scheme
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclearhierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“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
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
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?
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highHierarchical 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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“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
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal 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.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal 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.
The science communication problem . . .
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
4. Two-channel communication strategy
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., Wittlin, M, Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman D. & Mandel, G. The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons, CCP Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011))
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
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.
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).
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).
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
4. Experimental response items
A. Evidence Skepticism Module
13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?
Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]
14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
Climate change
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
Climate change
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
Control Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Anti-pollution Condition
Geoengineering Condition
4. Experimental response items
A. Evidence Skepticism Module
13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?
Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]
14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
Anti-pollution Condition
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
Geoengineering Condition
RiskPerception
channel 1: content
Two Channel Communication Strategy
Information channel 2: meaning
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
z_St
udy
dism
iss 2
Dismiss
Credit
Study dismissiveness
Hierarch IndividEgal Commun
anti-pollution
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
control pollution geoengineering
more polarization
lesspolarization
Polarizationz_
Stud
y di
smiss
2
anti-pollution
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., Tarantola, T., Silva C., & Braman, D., Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-cultural Study, CCP Working Paper No. 92 (Jan. 9, 2012).
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
