Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
comments questions: [email protected]
papers, etc: www.culturalcognition.net
Science Communication & Judicial-Neutrality Communication Look the Same to Me!
Dan M. Kahan Yale University
www.culturalcognition.net
Figure 2. An accepted grasp for chick sexing. (Modified from “Chick Sexing” by J.H. Lunn, 1948, American Scientist, 36, pp. 280-87. Copyright 1948 by the American Scientist. Photograph by the University of Minnesota Photographic Laboratory. Adapted by permission.)
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
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, nuclearhierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
61%
66%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Arg ument Argu me nt Expe cted Advoc ate/ Argumen tAli gnment
Une xpect ed Ad voca te/ArgumentAlignment
Plur alistic Advocate /Arg umentAlig nment
Hierarchi cal Individual istEgalitarian Communitari an
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Culturally Identifiable ExpertsHierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
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).
56%
61%
66%
70%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
No Argument Argument Expected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Unexpected Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Pluralistic Advocate/ArgumentAlignment
Hierarchical IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian 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 IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Culturally Identifiable ExpertsHierarchy
Egalitarianism
CommunitarianismIndividualism
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).
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Climate ChangeNuclear Power
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
Cultural Cognition WorldviewsRisk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).
randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:
American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences
“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”
Robert Linden
Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships:
American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(science conclusive)
Low Risk(science inconclusive)
Climate Change
randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
Low Risk(safe)
High Risk(not safe)
Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.
Oliver Roberts
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”
James Williams Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences
“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”
James Williams
Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships:
American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences
High Risk(Increase crime)
Low Risk(Decrease Crime)
Concealed Carry Laws
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Climate Change
Nuclear Waste
Gun Control
Low RiskHigh Risk
N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence
ConcealedCarry
ClimateChange
NuclearPower 31%
54%
22%
58%61%
72%
Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response
60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%20
%40
%60
%80
%
Clim
ate
Cha
nge
Nucl
ear W
aste
Gun
Con
trol
Low RiskHigh Risk
Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree
Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree
Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
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 CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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 CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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 -mil itary Anti -abortion
Anti -mi litary Anti-abortion
Anti-mili tary
Police liable Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police
Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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%
10 0%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abort ion
Anti-military An ti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damag es vs. police
Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Ind ivid
“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”
Hypotheses
Pct
. Agr
ee
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-milit ary Anti-abortion
Anti-milit ary
Police liable Enjoin police Damag es vs. police
Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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 %
10 0%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-ab ortio n
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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 %
Ant i-abortion
Ant i-mi litary Ant i-abortion
Anti-military Anti -abortion
Anti-military
Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police
Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Indiv id
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%
Ant i-abortion
Anti-military Ant i-abortion
Anti -mil itary Anti-abort ion
Anti-military
Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal IndivdHier CommHier Indi vid
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
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
Deadly force warranted by lethal risk posed by driver
Derived by monte carlo simulation based on logistic regression model. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g w
ith S
. Ct.
maj
ority
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Linda Bernie
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Linda Bernie
Ron
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Pat Linda Bernie
Ron BernieLindaPat
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g w
ith S
. Ct.
maj
ority
R o n
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
R on Pat Lind a Ber nie
Ro n B ernieLin daPa t
Ron
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Pat Linda Bernie
Ron BernieLindaPat Ron
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Pat L inda Bernie
Ron BernieLindaPat
Ro n
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Ron Pat Li nda Ber ni e
R on B ern ieLi ndaPatR o n
0 %
2 0 %
4 0 %
6 0 %
8 0 %
10 0 %
R o n Pa t Lin da B ern ie
Ron BernieLindaPat
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
Cultural-credibility heuristic
Narrative framing
Value affirmation
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 IndividualistEgalitarian Communitarian
Risk Perception by Condi ti on, Worldview
2.0
2.3
2.5
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.5
No Argument Argument withoutAdvocate
Expected AdvocateAlignment
Une xpectedAdvocate Al ignment
Intramural Ad vocateAl ignment
Hierarch Indiv idual ist
Egalitarian Com mun itari an
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi
Hperry/merck big oilguns lawyers
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
Kernel density estimate
02
46
810
Den
sity
. 4 .5 . 6 . 7 .8 . 9hhh ihi
Hper r y/ m erck big oi lguns law yer s
ke r ne l = e p an ec h nik o v, ba n dw id th = 0 .0 09 9
Kernel dens i ty estim ate
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 . 9hhhi hi
Hp err y/ mer ck big oi lguns law yer s
ke r ne l = e p an e ch n iko v , b a nd w id th = 0 .0 0 99
Kernel dens i ty estim ate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
.4 .5 .6 .7 . 8 . 9hhhi hi
Hper ry/ mer ck bi g oilguns law yer s
ke rn el = e p an ec h ni kov , b an dw id t h = 0 .0 0 99
Kerne l dens ity es timate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
.4 . 5 .6 . 7 . 8 . 9hhhi hi
Hper ry/m er ck b ig oi lguns la wyer s
ke rn el = ep a n ec hn ik ov , ba n dw i dth = 0 .0 09 9
Kernel densi ty es tim at e
Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)
Likelihood of supporting campaign finance reform
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
control anti-pollution geoengineering
US
UK
Diff.
in s
tudy
_val
idity
lesspolarization
more polarization
anti-pollutioncontrol geoengineering
U.S.
England
anti-pollutioncontrol geoengineering
science communication remedies
Cultural-credibility heuristic
Narrative framing
Value affirmation
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct.
Agr
ee
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi
Hperry/merck big oilguns lawyers
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
Kernel density estimate
02
46
810
Den
sity
. 4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 .9hhhi hi
Hper ry /m erc k bi g oi lguns l awyer s
k e rne l = ep an e ch n iko v , b an d wi dt h = 0 .0 0 99
Kernel dens i ty estimate
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 . 5 . 6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi
Hp er r y/m er ck bi g oi lguns la wyer s
ke rn e l = e pa n ec h ni ko v, b an d w id th = 0. 0 09 9
Kern el densi ty es tim ate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
.4 . 5 .6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi
Hpe rr y/m erc k bi g oilguns lawyer s
k e rn el = ep a ne c hn ik ov , b a n dw id th = 0 .0 09 9
Ker nel densi ty estimate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
.4 .5 . 6 .7 .8 . 9hhhi hi
H per ry/ mer ck big oi lg uns law yer s
ker n el = ep a ne c hn ik ov , ba nd w id th = 0 .0 09 9
Kernel dens ity es timate
Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)
Likelihood of supporting campaign finance reform
Cultural-credibility heuristic
Narrative framing
Value affirmation
No Argument ExpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
UnexpectedArgument/Advocate
Alignment
PluralisticArgument
Environment
BalancedArgument
Pct.
Agr
ee
“The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...”
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhihi
Hperry/merck big oilguns lawyers
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099
Kernel density estimate
02
46
810
Den
sity
.4 . 5 . 6 .7 . 8 .9hhhi hi
Hp err y/m er ck bi g oi lguns la wyer s
k er ne l = e p an ec h ni ko v, b an dw id th = 0 .0 09 9
Ker nel dens ity estim ate
02
46
810
Den
sity
. 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 . 9hhh ihi
Hper r y/m er ck big oilguns lawyer s
ke rn e l = e p an e ch n ik ov , b a nd w id th = 0 .0 09 9
Kernel densi ty es tim ate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
.4 .5 .6 .7 .8 . 9hhhihi
Hp err y/ m er ck bi g oi lguns l awyer s
ke rn el = e pa n ec h nik o v, b an dw i dt h = 0 .0 0 99
Kernel dens it y estimate
02
46
810
Dens
ity
. 4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9hhhi hi
Hpe rr y/m erc k bi g oi lguns la wyer s
ke rn e l = e pa n ec h nik o v, b an dw i dt h = 0 .0 0 99
Ker nel densi ty est ima te
Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists(Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)
Likelihood of supporting campaign finance reform
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
control anti-pollution geoengineering
US
UK
Diff.
in s
tudy
_val
idity
lesspolarization
more polarization
anti-pollutioncontrol geoengineering
U.S.
England
anti-pollutioncontrol geoengineering
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
Three parallels
1. How scientists recognize valid science || how lawyers recognize neutral judicial decisionmaking
2. Public conflict over valid science || public conflict over neutral judicial decisionmaking
3. How to communicate valid science || how to communicate neutral judicial decisionmaking
4. How to study public conflict over science || how to study public conflict over neutrality :
By conjecture and refutation—not storytelling and bombast!
Dan M. KahanYale Law School
Donald BramanGeorge Washington University
John GastilUniversity of Washington
Geoffrey CohenStanford University
Paul Slovic University of Oregon
Ellen PetersOhio State University
Hank Jenkins-SmithUniversity of Oklahoma
David HoffmanTemple Law School
Gregory MandelTemple Law School
Maggie WittlinCultural Cognition Project Lab
Lisa Larrimore-OueletteCultural Cognition Project Lab
Danieli EvansCultural Cognition Project Lab
June CarboneUniv. Missouri-Kansas City
Michael JonesSafra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ.
Naomi CahnGeorge Washington University
Jeffrey RachlinksiCornell Law School
John ByrnesCultural Cognition Project Lab
John MonahanUniversity of Virginia