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

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

3. 1.Misinformation doesn’t matter very much unless citizens are culturally predisposed to accept it. 2.When citizens are predisposed to accept misinformation, furnishing them with accurate information won't by itself do much good. 3.The kind of misinformation to worry about is public advocacy that invests policy-relevant factual issues with antagonistic cultural meanings.

4. I.Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model II.Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition III.Misinformation

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

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

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

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

9. I.Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model II.Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition III.Misinformation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

28. 0.9% 2.2% 3.6% 5.8% 19.5% -1.4% -0.9% -0.5% -2.6% 0% -5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 5% Increase in Predicted Likelihood of Self- Reported Familiarity with Nanotechnology Hierarch Egalitarian 20th 40th60th80th99th Communitarian Individualistic Percentile Figure S1 1st Source: Kahan, Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

46. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality High Sci. litearcy/System 2 Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

47. Lesser Risk Greater Risk Science literacy Numeracy low high perceived risk (z-score) lowhigh PIT prediction actual variance U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

48. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Cultural Variance...

49. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Cultural Variance Hierarchical Individualist Egalitarian Communitarian

50. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egalitarian Communitarian Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy? Hierarchical Individualist

51. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egalitarian Communitarian PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute Hierarchical Individualist Scilit/num Scale low high

52. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. High Sci lit/numeracy Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ Scilit/num Scale low high High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ

53. Greater Lesser perceived risk (z-score) “How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge Networks, Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence. High Sci lit/numeracy Low Sci lit/numeracy High Sci lit/numeracy Egal Comm Low Sci/lit numeracy Egal Comm Scilit/num Scale low high Low Sci lit/num. Hierarc Individ Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num High Sci lit/numeracy Hierarch Individ POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases

54. Prior Risk Perception Revised Risk Perception Cultural Predisposition New Information Cultural Cognition of Risk

55. 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 Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010)

56. “How much risk do you believe... poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” climate change Greater Lesserperceived risk (z-score) Scientific literacy/Numeracy LowHigh Egalitarian Communitarian Hierarchical Individualist

57. 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 Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition. L. & Human Behavior 34, 501-516 (2010) Kahan, Wittlin, Peters, Slovic, Braman & Mandel, Scientific Literacy, Climate Change, and the “Tragedy of the Risk Perceptions Commons,” CCP Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011)

58. I.Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model II.Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition III.Misinformation

59. 1.Misinformation doesn’t matter very much unless citizens are culturally predisposed to accept it. 2.When citizens are predisposed to accept misinformation, furnishing them with accurate information won't by itself do much good. 3.The kind of misinformation to worry about is public advocacy that invests policy-relevant factual issues with antagonistic cultural meanings.

60. Prior Risk Perception Revised Risk Perception New Information Cultural Predisposition Science Communication & Cultural Cognition Other Influences

63. Prior Risk Perception Revised Risk Perception New Information Cultural Predisposition Science Communication & Cultural Cognition Other Influences

64. I.Risk and Cultural Polarization: A Simple Model II.Mechanisms of Cultural Cognition III.Misinformation

65. Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment Go to www.culturalcognition.net!