Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
Download paper here.
www.culturalcognition.net
Culture, Rationality, and Climate Change: the Tragedy
of the Risk-Perceptions Commons
Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
Ellen Peters
Ohio State University
Maggie Wittlin
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Paul Slovic
Decision Research
Donald Braman
George Washington University
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106
Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School
Lisa Larrimore Ouellette
Cultural Cognition Project Lab
Gregory Mandel
Temple University
Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
Two Hypotheses
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
•
•
“science illiteracy”
“bounded rationality”
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
High Sci. litearcy/System 2
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
1.00
0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00
Greater Risk
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.50
1.00
actual variance
actual variance
0.00
low vs. high sci
-0.25
-0.50
low vs. high sci
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser Risk
-1.00
0.75
0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
PIT prediction
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
0.25
PIT prediction
low
30b
30b
-0.75
point 1
Science literacy
-0.75
30t
30t
high
-1.00
point 2
low
point 1
-1.00
point 1
high
30b
30b
30t
30t
Numeracy
point 2
point 2
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.50
0.25
1.00 0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
PIT prediction
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
Actual variance
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
low
low
low
high
high
Scilit/num Scale high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
Two Hypotheses
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
•
•
“science illiteracy”
“bounded rationality”
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
Mary Douglas’s “Group-Grid” Worldview Scheme
Risk Perception Key:
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchist
Climate Change
Environmental
Risk
Nuclear Power
Abortion
Guns/Gun Control
Compulsory psychiatric treatment
HPV Vaccination
Individualist
Communitarian
Climate Change
Environmental
Risk
Nuclear Power
Abortion
Compulsory psychiatriatic treatment
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
Egalitarian
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
Cultural Variance
1.00
0.75
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
-1.00
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
high
high low
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.
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
1.00
1.00
1.00
Greater 1.00
Egalitarian Communitarian
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
0.75 1.00 0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
Low Sci lit/numeracy
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Hierarchical Individualist
low
low
low
low
high
high
high
high
low
high
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?”
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
1.00
1.00
0.75
Greater 1.00
1.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
0.75
0.25
0.50
perceived risk (z-score)
0.50
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-1.00
-1.00
-0.75
-1.00
High Sci lit/numeracy
Lesser -1.00
low
high
low
high
high
low
high
high low
sci_num
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.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
1.00
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health,
safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Knowledge
Networks,
Feb.
2010. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”)
sci_num
to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• 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)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
• Kahan, D.M., Wittlin, M, Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman D.
& Mandel, G. The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons, CCP
Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011))
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human
health, safety, or prosperity?”
1.00
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
1.00
0.50
0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.75
-1.00
Greater 1.00
1.00
1.00
0.75
1.00 0.75
0.75
0.75
0.50 0.75
0.50 0.50
0.50
0.50
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
0.00 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25-0.25
-0.25
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75 -1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser-1.00
perceived risk (z-score)
0.75
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci/lit
numeracy
Egal Comm
Low Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/num.
Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Hierarch Individ
low
high
low
high
low
high
high
low
high
high low
sci_num
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500.
Knowledge
Networks,
Feb. 2010. Scale 0 (“no
sci_num
risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
point 1
point 2
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
1. Culturally motivated search & assimilation
• 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)
2. Cultural source credibility effect
• 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)
3. Cultural availability effect
• Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of
Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-174 (2011)
4. Culturally motivated system(atic) 2 reasoning
• Kahan, D.M., Wittlin, M, Peters, E., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman D.
& Mandel, G. The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons, CCP
Working Paper No. 89 (June 24, 2011))
Individual rationality, group values & climate change opinion
1. Two hypotheses
2. Data
3. Tragedy of the risk perception commons
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!