1 / 43

John Gastil Univ. of Washington Dept. of Communication UW Climate Impacts Group May 18, 2010

One Theory to Rule Them All: The Cultural Cognitive Approach to Public Opinion on Everything from Gun Control to Climate Change. John Gastil Univ. of Washington Dept. of Communication UW Climate Impacts Group May 18, 2010. Overview. Broader Context of the Research Program

onella
Download Presentation

John Gastil Univ. of Washington Dept. of Communication UW Climate Impacts Group May 18, 2010

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. One Theory to Rule Them All: The Cultural Cognitive Approach to Public Opinion on Everything from Gun Control to Climate Change John GastilUniv. of WashingtonDept. of Communication UW Climate Impacts GroupMay 18, 2010

  2. Overview • Broader Context of the Research Program • The Cultural Cognitive Approach • Culture, Ideology, and Partisanship • Cultural Attitudes toward Science and Tech. • Origins of Distorted Empirical Beliefs • Future Research

  3. BroaderResearchContext

  4. Collaborators and Support • Principal investigators • Dan Kahan, Yale University • Don Braman, George Washington University • Additional collaborators on cited research herein • Geoff Cohen, University of Colorado • Paul Slovic, Decision Research • Justin Reedy, University of Washington • Financial support • National Science Foundation (Directorate for Social, Behavioral & Economic Sciences: Law and Social Science Program and the Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program) • Department of Communication, University of Washington • Assorted project-based funding

  5. The Cultural Cognitive Approach to Public Opinion

  6. What Exactly Isthe Cultural Divide?

  7. Conflicting Cultural Orientations Fears erosion of authority and private enterprise Fears loss of shared values and community Fears new inequalities/ discrimination Fears loss of personal liberty

  8. Representative Survey Items Communitarian 35% agree: The women’s rights movement has gone too far. Hierarchical 79% agree:The gov’t should stop telling people how to live their lives. 52% agree: It’s society’s responsibility to make sure everyone’s basic needs are met. Communitarian Individualist 60% agree:Our society would be better off if the distribution of wealth was more equal. Egalitarian

  9. Communitarian Distribution of U.S. Cultural Orientations Hierarchical Communitarian Individualist Egalitarian 2004 national survey data.

  10. Geographic Regions in Washington NORTH SOUND EASTERN WASHINGTON WESTERN WASHINGTON KING (Minus Seattle) SEATTLE

  11. Communitarian Cultural Regions in Washington Hierarchical Eastern WA Western WA Communitarian Individualist NorthSound King County (minus Seattle) Seattle Egalitarian

  12. How Big Are the Differences? I-71: Affirming legal status of domestic partnerships

  13. How Big Are the Differences? • Individualism: “Most people who want to get ahead can make it if they're willing to work hard.” • 69% of Eastern Washingtonians hold this view • 59% of Seattleites agree • Egalitarianism: “It is NOT necessary to believe in God in order to be moral and have good values” • 71% of Seattleites hold this view • 50% of Eastern Washingtonians agree

  14. Conflicting Cultural Orientations

  15. Culture,Ideology, and Partisanshipa.k.a. Two dimensions are better than one

  16. Conflicting Cultural Orientations

  17. Self-placement on 7-point scale from "strongly liberal" to "strongly conservative" Lib/Con Agree/disagreewith five gun control policy items GunControl GOP Strength of party affiliation 2004 national survey data.

  18. Lib/Con -.28 GunControl Total R = .40 -.57 GOP -.17

  19. Agree/disagree with a set of individ./solidarism statements Individ. GunControl Hieararch Agree/disagree with a set of hierarch/egalitarian statements

  20. Individ. -.25 GunControl Total R = .53 .23 Hieararch -.44

  21. Individ. Party affiliation as a social expressionof cultural orientation GOP Hieararch

  22. Individ. "Liberal" and "Conservative" as linguisticexpressionsof cultural orientation(and party identity) Lib/Con GOP Hieararch

  23. Individ. Lib/Con GunControl GOP Hieararch

  24. Individ. (ns) -.29 (ns) Lib/Con (ns) GunControl .22 GOP (ns) -.55 .53 .50 Hieararch

  25. Individ. -.29 Lib/Con GunControl .22 GOP -.55 .53 .50 Hieararch

  26. Cultural Attitudes Toward Science and Technology

  27. Cultural Divergence in Attitudes toward Nanotechnology The potential benefits of nanotechnology include the use of nanomaterials in products to make them stronger, lighter and more effective. Some examples are food containers that kill bacteria, stain-resistant clothing, high performance sporting goods, faster, smaller computers, and more effective skincare products and sunscreens. Nanotechnology also has the potential to provide new and better ways to treat disease, clean up the environment, enhance national security, and provide cheaper energy. While there has not been conclusive research on the potential risks of nanotechnology, there are concerns that some of the same properties that make nanomaterials useful might make them harmful. It is thought that some nanomaterials may be harmful to humans if they are breathed in and might cause harm to the environment. There are also concerns that invisible, nanotechnology-based monitoring devices could pose a threat to national security and personal privacy.

  28. Cultural Divergence in Attitudes toward Nanotechnology Communitarians and Egalitarians Hierarchs and Individualists

  29. Cultural Location of Genetic Enhancement Arguments Hierarchism Pro: collective well-being Con: disruptsocial order Individualism Collectivism Pro: self-actualization Con: social oppression Egalitarianism

  30. Cultural Location of Genetic Enhancement Arguments Hierarchism Anti-Repro.Technology Elite Cluster ConservativeRepublicans Individualism Collectivism Pro-Repro.Technology Elite Cluster LiberalDemocrats Egalitarianism

  31. Origins of Distorted EmpiricalBeliefs

  32. Failure to Weigh Key Arguments I-841 (WA-2003) repealed a state regulation that aimed to reduce the frequency of ergonomics-related workplace injuries. • Reinforcing existing bias 90% of proponents were able to give a pro argument, and 90% of opponents could offer a con • Not hearing the other side Fewer than 50% of either group were able to name an argument advanced by the other side 2003 King County survey data.

  33. Calculating Knowledge Distortion 2003 King County survey data.

  34. Sources of Knowledge Distortion

  35. Impact of Knowledge Distortion

  36. Future Research

  37. Future Research • Politics, culture, and nanotech debate • Characterize the distribution of views • Map the arguments for/against • Knowledge distortion • Calculate it over time and across groups • See whether its effects are independent • Public deliberation on climate change • Supplanting heuristics with learning and critical reflection • Different cultural orientations toward deliberation itself

More Related