1. Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES—0922714 Cultural Cognition Lab, Yale Law School www.culturalcognition.net “Motivated Numeracy”: What’s the Point?

2. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

3. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

5. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

6. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear hierarchical communitarians egalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews egalitarian communitarians Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk cats/annoying varmints hierarchical individualists

7. Two theories Public irrationality thesis (“PIT”) Cultural cognition thesis (“CCT”)

8. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

9. Three studies

11. Perceived risk Science comprehension Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Low High Science comprehension PIT PredictionActual Response Greater 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.

12. Perceived risk Science comprehension Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Low High Science comprehension PIT PredictionActual Response Greater 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.

13. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Cultural Cognition Worldviews

14. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Science comprehension PIT variance 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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser CCT variance Hiearch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran

15. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Science comprehension PIT variance 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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser CCT variance Hiearch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran What is relationship of PIT & CIT

16. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Science comprehension PIT variance 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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser CCT variance Hiearch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute

17. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” Science comprehension PIT variance 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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser CCT variance Hiearch Individualist Egalitarian Communitaran PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute

18. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist Low High Science comprehension

19. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low High Science comprehension

20. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low High Science comprehension Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ

21. Low High perceived risk (z-score) “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. perceived risk (z-score) Greater Lesser PIT Prediction Actual Result Greater Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low High Science comprehension Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ High Sci lit/numeracy mean Low Sci lit/numeracy sample mean POLARIZATION INCREASES as science comprehension increases

22. Three studies

23. Kahan, D.M. Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection. Judgment and Decision Making 8, 407-424 (2013).

25. “Skin cream experiment”

27. Two conditions

28. Correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data. correct incorrect Numeracy score

29. numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data. Numeracy

30. “Gun ban experiment”

31. Four conditions

32. Correct interpretation of data Gun ban skin treatment

33. Correct interpretation of data skin treatment Gun ban

34. Numeracy Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.

35. Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub) skin treatment Gun ban

36. Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub) skin treatment Gun ban

37. 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_decrease0.40(1.57) rash increase0.06(0.22) crime increase1.07(4.02) z_numeracy-0.01(-0.05) z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease0.55(2.29) z_numeracy_x_rash_increase0.23(1.05) z_numeracy_x_crime_increase0.46(2.01) z_numeracy20.31(2.46) z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease0.02(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_decrease0.56(2.64) Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase1.28(6.02) Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase0.63(2.82) z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub-0.33(-1.89) z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease0.33(1.40) z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase0.54(2.17) z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase0.26(1.08) _constant-0.96(-4.70)

38. probabilility of correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases rash decreases rash increases rash decreases rash increases rash decreases rash increases crime increases crime decreases crime increases crime decreases crime increases 0%10%20% 30% 40% 50%60%70% 80%90%100% crime decreases crime increases probabilility of correct interpretation of data High numeracyLow numeracy high numeracy = 7 correct low numeracy = 3 correct skin treatment Gun ban Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub) Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)

39. probabilility of correct interpretation of data 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 numeracy partisans 46% (± 17%) Avg. “polarization” on crime data for low numeracy partisans 25% (± 9%) crime increases crime decreases crime increases crime decreases crime increases crime decreases crime increases High numeracyLow numeracy high numeracy = 7 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub) Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)

40. High numeracyLow numeracy EC 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 EC rash decreases EC rash increases HI rash increases HI rash decreases skin treatment high numeracy = 7 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Egalitarian communitarian (-1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) Hierarch individid (+1 SD on Hfac & Ifac) Gun ban

41. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

42. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

43. 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

44. The science communication problem

45. Not too little rationality, but too much.

46. The science communication problem Not too little rationality, but too much.

47. 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

48. The science communication problem

49. The science communication problem is not normal

50. Normal

52. Pathological

53. 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

54. “Scicomm# enviornment Protection”

55. “Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying

56. “Scicomm# enviornment Protection” “Mitigation”: Avoiding, detoxifying “Adaptation”: Fortifying reason

57. I. Two theories II. Three studies III. One synthesis The science communication problem

58. Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Donald Braman George Washington University John Gastil University of Washington Geoffrey Cohen Stanford University Paul Slovic University of Oregon Ellen Peters Ohio State University Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma David Hoffman Temple Law School Gregory Mandel Temple Law School Maggie Wittlin Cultural Cognition Project Lab Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette Cultural Cognition Project Lab Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Project Lab June Carbone Univ. Missouri-Kansas City Michael Jones Virginia Tech University Naomi Cahn George Washington University Jeffrey Rachlinksi Cornell Law School John Byrnes Cultural Cognition Project Lab John Monahan University of Virginia

59. www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”