Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Research Supported by:National Science Foundation, SES—0922714Cultural Cognition Lab, Yale Law School
www.culturalcognition.net
“Motivated Numeracy”: What’s the Point?
Dan M. Kahan Yale University
I. Two theories
II. Three studies
III. One synthesis
The science communication problem
Two theories
Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”)
Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)
Two theories
Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”)
Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Abortion procedure
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, nuclear
hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
egalitarian communitarians
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
cats/annoying varmints
cats/annoying varmints
hierarchical individualists
Two theories
Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”)
Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)
I. Two theories
II. Three studies
III. One synthesis
The science communication problem
Three studies
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low
Perc
eive
d ri
sk
Science comprehensionLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highLow High
Science comprehension
PIT Prediction Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Greater
Lesser
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
Perc
eive
d ri
sk
Science comprehensionLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highLow High
Science comprehension
PIT Prediction Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Greater
Lesser
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.
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Environment: climate, nuclear
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Low High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highScience comprehension
PIT varianceGreater
Lesser
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
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser
CCT 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
HiearchIndividualist
EgalitarianCommunitaran
-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
Low High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highScience comprehension
PIT varianceGreater
Lesser
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
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser
CCT 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
HiearchIndividualist
EgalitarianCommunitaran
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
What is relationship of PIT & CIT
Low High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highScience comprehension
PIT varianceGreater
Lesser
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
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser
CCT 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
HiearchIndividualist
EgalitarianCommunitaran
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
Low High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“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
low highScience comprehension
PIT varianceGreater
Lesser
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
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser
CCT 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
HiearchIndividualist
EgalitarianCommunitaran
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
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 highLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Science comprehension
Lesser
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.
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser -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
PIT Prediction Actual ResultGreater
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
lowLow High
Science comprehension
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Science comprehension
Lesser
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.
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser -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
PIT Prediction Actual ResultGreater
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low High
Science comprehension
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Science comprehension
Lesser
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.
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser -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
PIT Prediction Actual ResultGreater
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low High
Science comprehension
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highLow High
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Science comprehension
Lesser
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.
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Greater
Lesser -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
PIT Prediction Actual ResultGreater
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low High
Science comprehension
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
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
High Sci lit/numeracymean Low Sci lit/numeracy
sample mean
POLARIZATION INCREASES as science comprehension increases
Three studies
Kahan, D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407-424 (2013).
Conservative RepublicanLow CRT
Liberal DemocratLow CRT
Conservative RepublicanHigh CRT
Liberal DemocratHigh CRT
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
CR
T “v
alid
”
(A) (B)
control skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biasedcontrol skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biased10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
“Skin cream experiment”
“Skin cream experiment”
Two conditions
01
corr
ect i
nter
pre
tatio
n of
dat
a (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.
correct
incorrect
01
n_co
rrect interp
retatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
01n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
01
23
45
67
89
n_n
um
era
cy
skin
cre
am
numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data.
Numeracy
0.0
5.1
.15
.2D
ensi
ty
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Sample overall
“Gun ban experiment”
Four conditions
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
correct
incorrect
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
Correct interpretation of data
Gun ban
01n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
01
23
45
67
89
n_n
um
era
cy
skin
cre
am
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
correct
incorrect
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
01n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
01
23
45
67
89
n_n
um
era
cy
skin
cre
am
skin treatment
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
correct
incorrect
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
01
corr
ect i
nter
pre
tatio
n of
dat
a (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreasescrime increases
Correct interpretation of data
skin treatment
Gun ban
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
correct
incorrect
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
01n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
01
23
45
67
89
n_n
um
era
cy
skin
cre
am
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
correct
incorrect
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
01n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
01
23
45
67
89
n_n
um
era
cy
skin
cre
am
Numeracy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Numeracy scoreEntire Sample
Conserv_Repub > 0M = 3.9, SD = 2.0
Conserv_Repub < 0M = 3.6, SD = 2.1
Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples
Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Numeracy scoreEntire Sample
Conserv_Repub > 0M = 3.9, SD = 2.0
Conserv_Repub < 0M = 3.6, SD = 2.1
Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect
inter
pret
ation
of d
ata
(=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreasesrash decreases
rash increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
correct
incorrect
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreasesrash decreases
rash increases
01
n_co
rrect interp
retatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
correct
incorrect
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreasesrash decreases
rash increases
01
n_co
rrect interp
retatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
correct
incorrect
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
N = 1111. Outcome variable is “Correct” (0 = incorrect interpretation of data, 1 = correct interpretation). Predictor estimates are logit coefficients with z-test statistic indicated parenthetically. Experimental assignment predictors—rash_decrease, rash_increase, and crime_increase—are dummy variables (0 = unassigned, 1 = assigned—with assignment to “crime decreases” as the comparison condition. Z_numeracy and Conserv_Repub are centered at 0 for ease of interpretation. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient is significant at p < 0.05.
Best fitting regression model for experiment results
rash_decrease 0.40 (1.57)rash increase 0.06 (0.22)crime increase 1.07 (4.02)z_numeracy -0.01 (-0.05)z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease 0.55 (2.29)z_numeracy_x_rash_increase 0.23 (1.05)z_numeracy_x_crime_increase 0.46 (2.01)z_numeracy2 0.31 (2.46)z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease 0.02 (0.14)z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase -0.07 (-0.39)z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase -0.31 (-1.75)Conserv_Repub -0.64 (-3.95)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.56 (2.64)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase 1.28 (6.02)Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase 0.63 (2.82)z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub -0.33 (-1.89)z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.33 (1.40)z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase 0.54 (2.17)z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase 0.26 (1.08)_constant -0.96 (-4.70)
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0081
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0071
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0111
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0121
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreasescrime increases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
crime decreases
crime increases
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
High numeracyLow numeracy
high numeracy = 7 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct
skin treatment
Gun ban
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0081
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0121
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%probabilility of correct interpretation of data
Gun ban
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for high numeracypartisans
46% (± 17%)
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for low numeracypartisans
25% (± 9%)
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreasescrime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
High numeracyLow numeracy
high numeracy = 7 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
High numeracyLow numeracy
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0166
probability of correct interpretation of data
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0223
probability of correct interpretation of data0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0374
probability of correct interpretation of data
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0149
probability of correct interpretation of dataEC rash increases
HI crime decrease
HI crime increase
EC crime decrease
EC crime increase
HI crime decrease
HI crime increase
EC crime decrease
EC crime increase
HI rash increases
HI rash decreases
probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data
EC rash decreasesEC rash decreases
EC rash increases
HI rash increases
HI rash decreases
skin treatment
high numeracy = 7 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct
Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on Hfac & Ifac)Hierarch individid (+1 SD on Hfac & Ifac)
Gun ban
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
Lesser
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highHigh Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low High
Science comprehension
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
I. Two theories
II. Three studies
III. One synthesis
The science communication problem
A. The tragedy of the science communication commons
B. The pathology of antagonistic meanings
C. The science communication environment as a collective good
One synthesis
The science communication problem
-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.
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpr
etatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
co
rre
ct
inte
rpre
tati
on
of
da
ta (
=1
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9num eracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
Conservative RepublicanLow CRT
Liberal DemocratLow CRT
Conservative RepublicanHigh CRT
Liberal DemocratHigh CRT
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
CR
T “v
alid
”
(A) (B)
control skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biasedcontrol skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biased10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.
-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.
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpr
etatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
co
rre
ct
inte
rpre
tati
on
of
da
ta (
=1
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9num eracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
Conservative RepublicanLow CRT
Liberal DemocratLow CRT
Conservative RepublicanHigh CRT
Liberal DemocratHigh CRT
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
CR
T “v
alid
”
(A) (B)
control skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biasedcontrol skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biased10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
The science communication problem
Not too little rationality, but too much.
-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.
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpr
etatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
co
rre
ct
inte
rpre
tati
on
of
da
ta (
=1
)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9num eracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
Conservative RepublicanLow CRT
Liberal DemocratLow CRT
Conservative RepublicanHigh CRT
Liberal DemocratHigh CRT
Pro
babi
lity
of a
gree
ing
CR
T “v
alid
”
(A) (B)
control skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biasedcontrol skeptic-is-biased believer-is-biased10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
A. The tragedy of the science communication commons
B. The pathology of antagonistic meanings
C. The science communication environment as a collective good
One synthesis
-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
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpret
ation
of da
ta (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f data
(=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
The science communication problemis not normal
-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.
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpret
ation
of da
ta (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f data
(=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skin treatment
Gun ban
Normal
Normal
X-ray radiation
“How much risk do you believe ... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Climate change
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01
23
45
67
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01
23
45
67
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low high
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
science comprehensionrisk perception
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low highscience comprehension
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Medical x-ray risk perceptions
01
23
45
67
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21science literacy score
X-ray radiation
“How much risk do you believe ... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Climate change
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low high
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
science comprehensionrisk perception
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low highscience comprehension
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
01
23
45
67
-2 -1 0 1 2
Egalitarian communitarian
Hierarch individualist
Egalitarian Individualist
Hierarch Communitarian
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreasesrash decreases
rash increases
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
correct
incorrect
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skintreatment
Normal
Pathological
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Gun ban
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z-
scor
e) Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
Climate change risk & Cultural Polarization
X-ray radiation
“How much risk do you believe ... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Climate change
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01
23
45
67
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01
23
45
67
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low high
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
science comprehensionrisk perception
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low highscience comprehension
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Medical x-ray risk perceptions
01
23
45
67
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21science literacy score
X-ray radiation
“How much risk do you believe ... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Climate change
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
01234567
0 3 6 9 12 15 18 21science comprehension
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low high
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
science comprehensionrisk perception
no risk at all
Extremelyhigh risk
low highscience comprehension
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
01
23
45
67
-2 -1 0 1 2
Egalitarian communitarian
Hierarch individualist
Egalitarian Individualist
Hierarch Communitarian
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
rash increases
rash decreasesrash decreases
rash increases
01
n_
co
rre
ct in
te
rp
re
ta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
Numeracy score
correct
incorrect
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
skintreatment
A. The tragedy of the science communication commons
B. The pathology of antagonistic meanings
C. The science communication environment as a collective good
One synthesis
“Scicomm# enviornment Protection”
“Scicomm# enviornment Protection”
“Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying
“Scicomm# enviornment Protection”
“Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying
“Adaptation”: Fortifying reason
I. Two theories
II. Three studies
III. One synthesis
The science communication problem
Dan M. KahanYale Law School
Donald BramanGeorge Washington University
John GastilUniversity of Washington
Geoffrey CohenStanford University
Paul Slovic University of Oregon
Ellen PetersOhio State University
Hank Jenkins-SmithUniversity of Oklahoma
David HoffmanTemple Law School
Gregory MandelTemple Law School
Maggie WittlinCultural Cognition Project Lab
Lisa Larrimore-OueletteCultural Cognition Project Lab
Danieli EvansCultural Cognition Project Lab
June CarboneUniv. Missouri-Kansas City
Michael JonesVirginia Tech University
Naomi CahnGeorge Washington University
Jeffrey RachlinksiCornell Law School
John ByrnesCultural Cognition Project Lab
John MonahanUniversity of Virginia
www. culturalcognition.net
“I am you!”
