Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu

1. Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. comments questions: dan.kahan@yale.edu papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net

2. www.culturalcognition.net Misinformation and the Science Communication Problem Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School

3. Misinformation doesn’t matter very much unless citizens are culturally predisposed to accept it. When citizens are predisposed to accept misinformation, furnishing them with accurate information won't by itself do much good. The kind of misinformation to worry about is public advocacy that invests policy-relevant factual issues with antagonistic cultural meanings.

4. Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model • Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition • Misinformation

5. Smart World = steady proliferation of knowledge • New • Information • Revised • Risk • Perception • Prior • Risk • Perception

6. Not So Smart World = confirmation bias • New • Information • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

7. Not So Smart & Very Disagreeable World • New • Information • Cultural • Predisposition • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

8. Not So Smart & Very Disagreeable World = persistent cultural polarization • New • Information • Cultural • Predisposition • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

9.  • Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model • Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition • Misinformation

11. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

12. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

13. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

14. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Nuclear power Climate change Abortion procedure Environmental risk Guns/gun control compulsory psychiatric treatment Individualism Communitarianism Nuclear power Climate change Abortion procedure Environmental risk compulsory psychiatric treatment Guns/gun control Egalitarianism

15. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

16. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

17. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

18. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05 Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

19. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05 Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

20. 100% 75% 50% Perceive Benefits> Risks 25% 0% * Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05 Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

21. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

22. Nanotechnology Risk Perception: Study Design • Sample • Measures • Experimental Manipulation • 1,850 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel • Worldviews • Self-reported familiarity with nanotechnology • Nanotechnology risks v. benefits • Other risk perceptions • No information vs. balanced information (between-subject design) Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

23. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

24. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

25. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

26. High Risk Moderate Risk Slight Risk Almost No Risk n = 1,820 to 1,830. Risk variables are 4-pt measures of “risk to people in American Society” posed by indicated risk. Differences between group means all significant at p ≤ .01.

27. Information effect: culture Information effect: familiarity Perceive Benefits> Risks

28. 25% 20% 19.5% Hierarch 15% 10% Increase in Predicted Likelihood of Self-Reported Familiarity with Nanotechnology 5.8% 5% 3.6% 2.2% 0.9% Egalitarian 0% -0.5% -0.9% -0.9% -1.4% -2.6% -5% 1st 40th 60th 80th 99th 20th Individualistic Communitarian Percentile Figure S1 Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

29. Cultural Cognition of Risk • But what about scientific consensus? • New • Information • Cultural • Predisposition • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

30. Cultural Cognition of Risk • Cultural • Predisposition • Scientific • Consensus • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

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

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

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

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

36. Table 2. Ordered logistic regression analysis of experiment results. N = 1500. Outcome variables are 6-point measure of disagreement-agreement with the statement that “I believe the author is a trustworthy and knowledgeable expert on” the indicated issue. Predictor estimates are logit coefficients. Standard errors are in parentheses. Boldedtypeface indicates predictor coefficient, model χ2, or G-statistic (incremental change in model χ2 associated with additional predictors) is statistically significant at p < 0.05

37. Is this a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... ? EC HI Pct. Agree Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74(2011).

38. Is this a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... ? EC HI Pct. Agree Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74(2011).

39. Is this a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... ? EC HI Pct. Agree Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74(2011).

40. Cultural Cognition of Risk • Cultural • Predisposition • Scientific • Consensus • Prior • Risk • Perception • Revised • Risk • Perception

41. “What is the position of expert scientists?” How much more likely to believe 57% Global temperatures are increasing. 12x 3x 6x Human activity is causing global warming. 5x Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities. Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.

42. Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme Risk Perception Key: Low Risk High Risk Hierarchist Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Individualist Communitarian Climate Change Nuclear Power Guns/Gun Control Egalitarian

43. “What is the position of expert scientists?” How much more likely to believe 57% Global temperatures are increasing. Human activity is causing global warming. Radioactive wastes from nuclear power can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities. Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.

44. www.culturalcognition.net Science Literacy, Cultural Cognition, and the Tragedy of the Risk-Perceptions Commons

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

46. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality Greater High Sci. litearcy/System 2 perceived risk (z-score) Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 Lesser 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.

47. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Greater Risk PIT prediction PIT prediction actual variance actual variance perceived risk (z-score) Lesser Risk low high low high Science literacy Numeracy 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.

48. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Cultural Variance... Greater Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Lesser 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.

49. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Cultural Variance Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarchical Individualist Lesser 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.

50. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy? Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Low Sci lit/numeracy perceived risk (z-score) High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarchical Individualist Lesser 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.