www.culturalcognition.net the climate-science literacy measurement problem—and how to fix it dan...

www.culturalcognition.net

The climate-science literacy measurement problem—and how to fix it

Research Supported by: Annenberg Center for Public Policy at the University of Pennsylvanalia

Dan M. KahanYale University

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

What am I talking about?

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

* The affect heuristic

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

Affect +/-

Risk perception

* The affect heuristic

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

Affect +/-

Risk perception

* The affect heuristic

perceivedbenefit

perceivedcost

anything else

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

Affect +/-

Risk perception

* The affect heuristic

perceivedbenefit

perceivedcost

“trust”

Poortinga, W. & Pidgeon, N.F. Trust in Risk Regulation: Cause or Consequence of the Acceptability of GM Food? Risk Analysis 25, 199-209 (2005)

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

* The cultural theory of risk* The affect heuristic

Affect +/-

Risk perception

perceivedbenefit

perceivedcost

“trust”

cultural worldview

* Interpretive community

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

* The cultural theory of risk* The affect heuristic

Risk perception

perceivedbenefit

perceivedcost

“trust”

cultural worldview

* Interpretive community

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change science lit.

climate change risk perception

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risk perception

happening

caused by humans

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

Affect +/-

climate change risk perception

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risks perception

climate change “everything else”

Affect +/-

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risks perception

Affect +/-

happening

caused by humans

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risks perception

Cultural worldviews happening

caused by humans

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

GWRISK: “How much risk do you believe global warming pose to human health, safety, or prosperity?” [0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]

“How strongly do you disagree or agree with the following statements?” [1 “Strongly disagree” to 6 “strong agree”]

Source: Kahan, D.M., Hank, J.-S., Tarantola, T., Silva, C. & Braman, D. Geoengineering and Climate Change Polarization: Testing a Two-Channel Model of Science Communication. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658, 192-222 (2015).

[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

-1.6 -1 0 1 1.6

r = - 0.65, p < 0.01

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Human caused Naturally caused No warming

Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”

N = 1,885. Annenberg Public Policy Center & Cultural Cognition Project. Nationally representative sample, June 2014 (YouGov). CIs are 0.95 confidence intervals for estimated general population means.

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

happening

caused by humans

climate change risk perception

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

happening

caused by humans

climate change risk perception

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1994 2010

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risks perception

happening

caused by humans

Affect +/-

causes skin cancer

caused by aerosols

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

climate change risks perception

happening

caused by humans

Cultural worldview

causes skin cancer

caused by aerosols

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview

* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”

* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview

* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”

* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

The knowledge-identity confound . . . .

1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)

2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

Essential tool: Item response theory

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

Essential tool: Item response theory

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

Essential tool: Item response theory

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

Essential tool: Item response theory

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

“Group 2”

“Group 1”

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

Essential tool: Item response theory

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

< avg religiosity

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]

Essential tool: Item response theory

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

< avg religiosity

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]

Essential tool: Item response theory

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

Liberal Democrat

Conservative Republican

How to detect it . . . .

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

> avg. religiosity

< avg religiosity

< avg religiosity

< avg religiosity

< avg religiosity

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2 2.5

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

Liberal Democrat

Conservative Republican

Liberal Democrat

Conservative Republican

Liberal Democrat

Conservative Republican

Essential tool: Item response theory

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

Liberal Democrat

Conservative Republican

How to detect it . . . .

How to fix it . . . .

How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!

How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!

How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!

How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

99th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile

Prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

resp

onse

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”

Ordinary Science Intelligence

LiberalDemocrat

ConservativeRepublican

How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!

What am I talking about?

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

Report from ongoing research program . . .

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery

Report from ongoing research program . . .

“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery

Report from ongoing research program . . .

“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions.” [True or False]

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or false]

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OCSI: item response functions

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1 0 1 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1 0 1 2

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1 0 1 2

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OCSI: item response functions

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OCSI: item response functions

0

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5

.6

.7

.8

.9

1

-2.5 -1 0 1 2.5

99th percentile1st percentile 84th percentile16th percentile 50th percentile

Prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

resp

onse

There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”

Ordinary Science Intelligence

LiberalDemocrat

ConservativeRepublican

OSI: item response functions

Report from ongoing research program . . .

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OCSI: item response functions

-2-1

01

2C

lima

te s

cie

nce

lite

racy

-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension

Ord

inar

y cl

imat

e sc

ienc

e in

telli

genc

e

r = 0.32, p < 0.01

Ordinary science intelligence

1st percentile

86th percentile

14th percentile

99th percentile

50th percentile

50th percentile1st percentile 86th percentile14th percentile 99th percentile

shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OSI & OCSI: best of friends!

-2-1

01

2C

lima

te s

cie

nce

lite

racy

-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension

Ord

inar

y cl

imat

e sc

ienc

e in

telli

genc

e

r = 0.32, p < 0.01

Ordinary science intelligence

50th percentile1st percentile 86th percentile14th percentile 99th percentile

1st percentile

86th percentile

14th percentile

99th percentile

50th percentile

> avg Left_Right< avg Left_Right

-2-1

01

2C

lima

te s

cie

nce

lite

racy

-2 -1 0 1 2science comprehension

shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OSI & OCSI: best of friends!

OCSI & positions on global warming

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Human caused Naturally caused No warming

Positions on global warming in “past few decades”

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

No

. co

rrec

t

Report from ongoing research program . . .

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .

OCSI: item response functions

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1 0 1 2

bars denote 0.95 CIs

Report from ongoing research program . . .Unconfounding

What we know from Who we are

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

“Climate scientists believe that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.” [True or False]

“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .” [True or False]

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or False]

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes around the world in recent decades.” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that nuclear power generation contributes to global warming” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that here will be positive as well as negative effects from human-caused global warming.” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that globally averaged surface air temperatures were higher for the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2009) than for the last decade of the twentieth century (1990-1999) [True or false]

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience Ordinary climate science intellience

Ordinary climate science intellience

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves

Figures plot the predicted probability of correctly responding to the item conditional on score on OCSI scale. Black bars denote 0.95 CIs. The figures can thus be used to assess the relative difficulty of the items and the precision with which they measure differences in comprehension.

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery

Report from ongoing research program . . .

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

“Climate scientists believe that the increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels will reduce photosynthesis by plants.” [True or False]

“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will result in flooding of many coastal regions .” [True or False]

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

“Climate scientists believe that if the North Pole icecap melted as a result of human-caused global warming, global sea levels would rise.” [True or False]

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming will increase the risk of skin cancer in human beings.” [True or False]

“Climate scientists believe that human-caused global warming has increased the number and severity of hurricanes around the world in recent decades.” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that nuclear power generation contributes to global warming” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that here will be positive as well as negative effects from human-caused global warming.” [True or false]

“Climate scientists believe that globally averaged surface air temperatures were higher for the first decade of the twenty-first century (2000-2009) than for the last decade of the twentieth century (1990-1999) [True or false]

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

0.1

.2.3

.4.5

.6.7

.8.9

1

-2 -1.5 -1 -.5 0 .5 1 1.5 2

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience Ordinary climate science intellience

Ordinary climate science intellience

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

prob

abili

ty o

f cor

rect

ans

wer

Ordinary climate science intellience

“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves

Figures plot the predicted probability of correctly responding to the item conditional on score on OCSI scale. Black bars denote 0.95 CIs. The figures can thus be used to assess the relative difficulty of the items and the precision with which they measure differences in comprehension.

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery

Report from ongoing research program . . .

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!

Report from ongoing research program . . .

* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample

* retest best OCSI plus some rookies

* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis

* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!

Report from ongoing research program . . .

* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample

* retest best OCSI plus some rookies

* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis

* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!

Report from ongoing research program . . .

* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample

* retest best OCSI plus some rookies

* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis

* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!

Report from ongoing research program . . .

* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample

* retest best OCSI plus some rookies

* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis

* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”

“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!

Report from ongoing research program . . .

* test Shi/Tobler/Visschers/Siegrist on US sample

* retest best OCSI plus some rookies

* use IRT to construct best unconfounded synthesis

* test conjectures on OCSI & “scientific consensus”

What am I talking about?

The end!

1. The identity-knowledge confound

2. How to detect & correct it

3. Report from an ongoing research program

New data: shame & critical reasoning!www.culturalcognition.net