informing public perceptions of risk and other legally consequential facts www....
TRANSCRIPT
Informing Public Perceptions of Risk and Other Legally Consequential Facts
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School Project on Emerging Nanotechnologies, Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center for Scholars Georgetown University Law School Temple University Law School
www. culturalcognition.net
Dan M. KahanYale University
& many others
What am I talking about?
0. Introductory study
1. Cultural cognition generally
2. The communication of risk
3. The adjudication of facts
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme
Risk > Benefit
Benefit > Risk
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
1,500 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Hierarchy-egalitarianism Individualism-communitarianism
5 individual risk/benefit items Risk overall, benefit overall Combined into reliable 4-pt “risk scale”
1. No-argument (n = 250)2. Balanced Arguments (n = 250)3. Arguments plus experts (n = 1,022)
Sample
Cultural Worldviews
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perceptions
Conditions
HPV-Vaccine Risk Perception: Study Design
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
47%
56%
61%
71%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
47%
56%
61%
61%
71%
66%
70%
58%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
54%
65%
47%
56%
61%
61%
71%
66%
70%
58%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
What am I talking about?
0. Introductory study
1. Cultural cognition generally
2. The communication of risk
3. The adjudication of facts
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, nuclear
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
2. Cultural source credibility effect
3. Cultural availability effect
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)
-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”)
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.
“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
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
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?
“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 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)
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.
“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 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 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.
“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 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 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.
“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 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 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.
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
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).
What am I talking about?
0. Introductory study
1. Cultural cognition generally
2. The communication of risk
3. The adjudication of facts
A tale of two vaccines …
Culturally Identifiable Experts
Source: 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 Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010).
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
54%
65%
47%
56%
61%
61%
71%
66%
70%
58%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Oct. 2005…
Oct. 2011
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct
. Agr
ee“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
54%
65%
47%
56%
61%
61%
71%
66%
70%
58%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
UnexpectedAdvocate Alignment
Intramural AdvocateAlignment
Hierarch Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Oct. 2005…
Oct. 2011
What am I talking about?
0. Introductory study
1. Cultural cognition generally
2. The communication of risk
3. The adjudication of facts
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
Experimental Conditions
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Pct.
Agre
e
Protestors blocked Screamed in face
Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Screamed in face
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Protestors blocked
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Police just annoyed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Pedesterians not want to listen
1. How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection?
2. How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact?
3. Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition?
4. Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations—that might help to mitigate cultural cognition?
5. How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions?
6. How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures?
Judicial management of cultural cognition
1. How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection?
2. How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact?
3. Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition?
4. Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations—that might help to mitigate cultural cognition?
5. How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions?
6. How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures?
Judicial management of cultural cognition
Dependent Variable
Force
Justified Lethal Risk to Public
Lethal Risk to Police
Chase Not Worth Risk
Harris More at Fault
Female
-0.15 (0.10)
-0.01 (0.11)
0.09 (0.10)
0.03 (0.10)
-0.08 (0.12)
Black (v. White)
-0.66 (0.22)
-0.45 (0.22)
-0.60 (0.22)
0.46 (0.22)
-0.92 (0.22)
Other Minority (v. white)
0.09 (0.16)
0.09 (0.17)
0.06 (0.16)
-0.03 (0.16)
-0.32 (0.17)
Age
-0.01 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.00 (0.00)
0.01 (0.00)
-0.01 (0.00)
Household income
0.03 (0.01)
0.06 (0.02)
0.02 (0.01)
-0.03 (0.01)
0.04 (0.02)
Education
-0.08 (0.03)
-0.05 (0.03)
-0.06 (0.03)
0.03 (0.03)
-0.02 (0.04)
South (v. West)
-0.02 (0.14)
0.08 (0.14)
-0.10 (0.14)
0.08 (0.13)
-0.21 (0.16)
Midwest (v. West)
-0.21 (0.15)
0.06 (0.15)
-0.05 (0.15)
0.27 (0.14)
-0.20 (0.17)
Northeast (v. west)
-0.33 (0.15)
-0.17 (0.16)
-0.25 (0.15)
0.30 (0.15)
-0.48 (0.17)
Urban
0.15 (0.14)
0.18 (0.15)
0.13 (0.14)
0.04 (0.14)
0.14 (0.16)
Married
0.27 (0.11)
0.32 (0.12)
0.16 (0.11)
-0.22 (0.11)
0.31 (0.13)
Parent
-0.01 (0.12)
0.04 (0.13)
0.15 (0.12)
-0.07 (0.12)
0.17 (0.14)
Republican (v. Democrat)
-0.01 (0.13)
-0.03 (0.14)
-0.04 (0.13)
-0.31 (0.13)
0.29 (0.16)
Independent (v. Democrat)
-0.03 (0.33)
0.00 (0.33)
0.01 (0.33)
-0.03 (0.31)
0.15 (0.38)
Conservative
0.05 (0.05)
0.09 (0.05)
0.05 (0.04)
0.03 (0.04)
0.08 (0.05)
Hierarchy
0.46 (0.08)
0.10 (0.08)
0.16 (0.08)
-0.39 (0.08)
0.39 (0.09)
Individualism
0.07 (0.09)
0.04 (0.09)
0.08 (0.08)
-0.08 (0.08)
0.07 (0.10)
R2 (McKelvey/ Zavoina) .11 .06 .04 .09 .14 log likelihood -2060.64 -1731.62 -2049.7 -2296.53 -1393.14 Prob > Chi2 .00 .00 .00 .00 .00 N = 1,347. Dependent variables are indicated responses measures. Ordered log-odds (logit) coefficients. Bolded and underlined coefficients are significant at p ≤ .05; bolded only and not underlined are significant at p ≤ .10. Parentheticals indicate standard errors
Ron
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Pat Linda Bernie
Ron BernieLindaPat
Deadly force warranted by lethal risk posed by driverMonte carlo simulation (m = 3,000)
Lik
eli
ho
od
of
ag
reei
ng
wit
h S
. C
t. m
ajo
rity
Ron
Ron BernieLindaPat
1. How should judge treat lawyers’ anticipation of cultural cognition in jury selection?
2. How should cultural cognition dynamic influence evidentiary rulings, including assessments of prejudicial impact?
3. Should the judge put any special limits on closing arguments to avoid exploitation of cultural cognition?
4. Are there procedural devices—ones relating to form of proof at trial, to jury instructions, or to jury deliberations—that might help to mitigate cultural cognition?
5. How, in opinion writing or otherwise, can the judge anticipate and minimize the impact of cultural cognition on how members of the public perceive the impartiality of trials and appellate decisions?
6. How should dynamics of cultural cognition influence summary adjudication procedures?
Judicial management of cultural cognition
What am I talking about?
0. Introductory study
1. Cultural cognition generally
2. The communication of risk
3. The adjudication of facts
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
Balanced information, benefits & risks
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
smis
s 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., Taranotola, 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!