www.culturalcognition.net
The climate-science literacy measurement
problem—and how to fix it
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
Research Supported by:
Annenberg Center for Public Policy at the University
of Pennsylvanalia
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?
1. The identity-knowledge confound
2. How to detect & correct it
3. Report from an ongoing research program
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)
* The affect heuristic
Affect
+/-
Risk
perception
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The affect heuristic
perceived
cost
Affect
+/-
Risk
perception
perceived
benefit
anything
else
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The affect heuristic
perceived
cost
Affect
+/-
Risk
perception
perceived
benefit
“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 affect heuristic
* The cultural theory of risk
* Interpretive community
cultural
worldview
Affect
+/-
perceived
cost
Risk
perception
perceived
benefit
“trust”
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
* The affect heuristic
* The cultural theory of risk
* Interpretive community
cultural
worldview
perceived
cost
Risk
perception
perceived
benefit
“trust”
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 . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
climate change
science lit.
climate change
risk perception
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
happening
caused by
humans
climate change
risk perception
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
Affect
+/-
climate change
risk perception
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
climate change
risks perception
Affect
+/climate change
“everything else”
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
climate change
risks perception
Affect
+/-
happening
caused by
humans
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
climate change
risks perception
Cultural
worldviews
happening
caused by
humans
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”]
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1.6
-1
0
1
1.6
[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1.6
-1
0
1
1.6
[0 “None at all” to 7 “Extremely high”]
7
6
r = - 0.65, p < 0.01
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1.6
-1
0
1
1.6
Beliefs on global temperature “increase in recent decades”
100%
75%
50%
25%
0%
Human caused
Naturally caused
No warming
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 . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
happening
caused by
humans
climate change
risk perception
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 . . .
1994
2010
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
caused by
aerosols
climate change
risks perception
Affect
+/-
happening
caused by
humans
causes skin
cancer
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
caused by
aerosols
climate change
risks perception
Cultural
worldview
happening
caused by
humans
causes skin
cancer
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 . . .
* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview
* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”
* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction
The knowledge-identity confound . . . .
1. The Slovic-Peters-Leiserowitz model (SPL)
2. “Climate change literacy” & SPL . . .
* “climate literacy” correlates with worldview
* two scales, not 1: “cause” & “no cause”
* worldview-“climate literacy” interaction
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
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
1
“Group 1”
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
“Group 2”
.5
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
“Group 2”
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.3
.2
“Group 2”
.1
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
1
“Group 1”
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
“Group 2”
.5
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
“Group 2”
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.3
.2
“Group 2”
.1
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
1
“Group 1”
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
“Group 2”
.5
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
“Group 2”
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
1
1
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
1
2.5
“Group 1”
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
“Group 2”
.1
0
.6
“Group 1”
.5
-1
0
“Group 2”
.2
.1
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
.9
1
< avg religiosity
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
> avg. religiosity
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
1
1
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
< avg religiosity
.5
0
1
2.5
< avg religiosity
> avg.
religiosity
> avg.
religiosity
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
> avg. religiosity
.1
-1
0
.2
.1
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
.9
1
< avg religiosity
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
> avg. religiosity
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-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]
1
1
.9
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
< avg religiosity
.5
< avg religiosity
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
> avg. religiosity
.1
0
.1
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
.9
1
< avg religiosity
.9
.8
.8
.7
.7
.6
.6
.5
> avg. religiosity
< avg religiosity
.5
.4
.4
.3
.3
.2
.2
.1
.1
0
> avg. religiosity
0
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-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]
1
11
.9
.9.9
.8
.8.8
.7
.7.7
.6
.5.5
.4
.4.4
.3
.3.3
.2
> avg. religiosity
.1
Democrat
.6.6
< avg religiosity
.5
Liberal
< avg religiosity
0
Conservative
Republican
.2.2
.1.1
00
-2.5
-1
0
1
2.5
-2.5
-2.5
-1-1
00
11
2.5
2.5
How to detect it . . . .
Essential tool: Item response theory
1
.9
.8
11
Liberal
< avg religiosity
Democrat
.9
.9
Liberal
Democrat
.8
.8
Conservative
Republican
.7
.6
.5
> avg. religiosity
.7
.7
< avg religiosity
.6
.6
Conservative
Republican
.5
.5
.4
.4
.4
.3
.3
.3
.2
.2
.2
.1
.1
.1
0
00
-2.5 -2.5
-2
-1.5
-1 -1 -.5
00
.5
11
1.5
2 2.52.5
-2.5 -2.5
-2
-1.5
-1 -1 -.5
00
.5
11
1.5
2
2.5
2.5
There is “solid evidence” of recent global
warming due “mostly” to “human activity such as
burning fossil fuels.” [agree, disagree]
1
1
.9
.9
.8
.8
Conservative
Republican
11
Liberal
< avg religiosity
.9.9
Democrat
.8.8
.7
.7
.7.7
.6
.6
< avg religiosity
.5
.5
.4
.4
.6.6
Liberal
Democrat
.5.5
.4.4
.3
.3
.3.3
.2
.2
.2.2
.1
.1
.1.1
0
0
Conservative
Republican
00
-2.5 -2.5
-2
-1.5
-1 -1 -.5
00
.5
11
1.5
2 2.52.5
-2.5
-2.5
-1-1
00
11
2.5
2.5
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!
How to fix it . . . . by unconfounding identity & knowledge!
Probability of correct response
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming
due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning
fossil fuels.”
1
.9
.8
Liberal
Democrat
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
Conservative
Republican
.2
.1
0
1st percentile
-2.5
16th-1
percentile 50th
percentile
0 percentile 84th
1 percentile 99th2.5
Ordinary Science Intelligence
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 . . .
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
“What gas do most scientists believe causes temperatures
in the atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen, helium, carbon
dioxide, radon]?”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” battery
“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]
“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 . . .
0
0
.1
.1
.2
.2
.3
.3
.4
.4
.5
.5
.6
.6
.7
.7
.8
.8
.9
.9
1
1
OCSI: item response functions
-2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
-1
0
1
2
-2
-1
0
1
2
Report from ongoing research program . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
OCSI: item response functions
-2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
-1
0
1
2
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OSI: item response functions
Probability of correct response
There is “solid evidence” of recent global warming
due “mostly” to “human activity such as burning
fossil fuels.”
1
.9
.8
Liberal
Democrat
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
Conservative
Republican
.2
.1
0
1st percentile
-2.5
16th-1
percentile 50th
percentile
0 percentile 84th
1 percentile 99th2.5
Ordinary Science Intelligence
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OCSI: item response functions
bars denote 0.95 CIs
Report from ongoing research program . . .
2
99th percentile
r = 0.32, p < 0.01
1
86th percentile
-1
0
50th percentile
14th percentile
1st percentile
-2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
OSI & OCSI: best of friends!
2
1
0
-1
-2
1st percentile
14th percentile
50th percentile
99th percentile
86th percentile
science comprehension
shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs
Ordinary science intelligence
Report from ongoing research program . . .
OSI & OCSI: best of friends!
> avg Left_Right
22
99th percentile
r = 0.32, p < 0.01
11
86th percentile
-1
-1
00
50th percentile
14th percentile
1st percentile
-2
-2
Ordinary climate science intelligence
< avg Left_Right
1st percentile
14th percentile
50th percentile
99th percentile
86th percentile
-2-2
-1-1
00
11
22
comprehension
sciencecomprehension
science
shaded area denotes 0.95 CIs
Ordinary science intelligence
Report from ongoing research program . . .
9
OCSI & positions on global warming
8
7
9
6
8
No. correct
5
7
6
4
59
3
48
2
37
26
1
15
0
04
3
2
1
0
Human caused Naturally caused No warming
Positions on global warming in “past few decades”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
1
OCSI: item response functions
-2
bars denote 0.95 CIs
-1
0
1
2
Report from ongoing research program . . .
Unconfounding
What we know
bars denote 0.95 CIs
from
Who we are
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate
Science Intelligence” battery
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves
“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]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
0
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
-2
2
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
probability of correct answer
0
-.5
1.5
“Climate scientists believe that globally
averaged surface air temperatures were
higher for the first decade of the twentyfirst century (2000-2009) than for the
last decade of the twentieth century
(1990-1999) [True or false]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
Ordinary climate science intellience
1
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that here will
be positive as well as negative effects
from human-caused global warming.”
[True or false]
.1
-1.5
.5
1
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
0
-2
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
-2
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that
nuclear power generation
contributes to global warming”
[True or false]
-.5
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
0
-1.5
-1
“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]
1
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
-2
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
“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
result in flooding of many coastal
regions .” [True or False]
probability of correct answer
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
2
0
-1.5
0
.1
-2
probability of correct answer
“Climate scientists believe that
human-caused global warming will
increase the risk of skin cancer in
human beings.” [True or False]
1
.9
probability of correct answer
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
probability of correct answer
1
“What gas do most scientists believe
causes temperatures in the
atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
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
2
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate
Science Intelligence” battery
“Ordinary climate science intelligence” item response curves
“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]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
0
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
-2
2
0
.5
1
1.5
2
2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
2
1
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
.6
.7
.8
.9
probability of correct answer
0
-.5
1.5
“Climate scientists believe that globally
averaged surface air temperatures were
higher for the first decade of the twentyfirst century (2000-2009) than for the
last decade of the twentieth century
(1990-1999) [True or false]
1
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
-1
Ordinary climate science intellience
1
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that here will
be positive as well as negative effects
from human-caused global warming.”
[True or false]
.1
-1.5
.5
1
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
0
-2
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
-2
Ordinary climate science intellience
“Climate scientists believe that
nuclear power generation
contributes to global warming”
[True or false]
-.5
0
of correct answer
probability
.1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9
0
0
-1.5
-1
“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]
1
1
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
-2
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
“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
result in flooding of many coastal
regions .” [True or False]
probability of correct answer
-1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
Ordinary climate science intellience
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
2
0
-1.5
0
.1
-2
probability of correct answer
“Climate scientists believe that
human-caused global warming will
increase the risk of skin cancer in
human beings.” [True or False]
1
.9
probability of correct answer
.9
.8
.7
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
probability of correct answer
1
“What gas do most scientists believe
causes temperatures in the
atmosphere to rise? Is it [hydrogen,
helium, carbon dioxide, radon]?”
-2
-1.5
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
1.5
Ordinary climate science intellience
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
2
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
* 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”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
* 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”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
* 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”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
* 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”
Report from ongoing research program . . .
“Ordinary Climate Science Intelligence” 2.0!
* 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?
 1. The identity-knowledge confound
 2. How to detect & correct it
 3. Report from an ongoing research program
The end!
New data: shame & critical reasoning!
www.culturalcognition.net