Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

This paper examines the science-of-science-communication measurement problem. In its simplest form, the problem reflects the use of externally invalid measures of the dynamics that generate cultural conflict over risk and other policy-relevant facts. But at a more fundamental level, the science-of-science-communication measurement problem inheres in the phenomena being measured themselves. The “beliefs” individuals form about a societal risk such as climate change are not of a piece; rather they reflect the distinct clusters of inferences that individuals draw as they engage information for two distinct ends: to gain access to the collective knowledge furnished by science, and to enjoy the sense of identity enabled by membership in a community defined by particular cultural commitments. The paper shows how appropriately designed “science comprehension” tests — one general, and one specific to climate change — can be used to measure individuals’ reasoning proficiency as collective-knowledge acquirers independently of their reasoning proficiency as cultural-identity protectors. Doing so reveals that there is in fact little disagreement among culturally diverse citizens on what science knows about climate change. The source of the climate-change controversy and like disputes is the contamination of education and politics with forms of cultural status competition that make it impossible for diverse citizens to express their reason as both collective-knowledge acquirers and cultural-identity protectors at the same time.

[1]  Paul Slovic,et al.  Motivated numeracy and enlightened self-government , 2017, Behavioural Public Policy.

[2]  Aaron M. McCright,et al.  The impacts of temperature anomalies and political orientation on perceived winter warming , 2014 .

[3]  J. M. Roos Measuring science or religion? A measurement analysis of the National Science Foundation sponsored science literacy scale 2006–2010 , 2014, Public Understanding of Science.

[4]  Gianluca Alimonti,et al.  About “scientific consensus on climate change” , 2014 .

[5]  D. Kahan 'Ordinary Science Intelligence': A Science-Comprehension Measure for Study of Risk and Science Communication, with Notes on Evolution and Climate Change , 2014 .

[6]  J. Houghton,et al.  Climate Change 2013 - The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change , 2014 .

[7]  Jon A. Krosnick,et al.  Public Misunderstanding of Political Facts: How Question Wording Affected Estimates of Partisan Differences in Birtherism , 2014 .

[8]  Melissa S. Yale,et al.  Differential Item Functioning , 2014 .

[9]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines , 2013, Science.

[10]  Dan M. Kahan,et al.  Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[11]  V. Adams,et al.  Estimating the financial risks of Andropogon gayanus to greenhouse gas abatement projects in northern Australia , 2013 .

[12]  Stephen Ansolabehere,et al.  Cooperative Survey Research , 2013 .

[13]  Ilana Ritov,et al.  The role of actively open-minded thinking in information acquisition, accuracy, and calibration , 2013, Judgment and Decision Making.

[14]  Gilles E. Gignac,et al.  The pivotal role of perceived scientific consensus in acceptance of science , 2013 .

[15]  Gene E. Likens,et al.  Trends in stream nitrogen concentrations for forested reference catchments across the USA , 2013 .

[16]  D. Kahan Making Climate-Science Communication Evidence-Based — All the Way Down , 2013 .

[17]  A. McCright,et al.  Bringing ideology in: the conservative white male effect on worry about environmental problems in the USA , 2013 .

[18]  A. Howarth The weakest link in existing studies: media–government risk interactions , 2013 .

[19]  Ellen Peters,et al.  Development and Testing of an Abbreviated Numeracy Scale: A Rasch Analysis Approach , 2012, Journal of behavioral decision making.

[20]  D. Kammen,et al.  Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature , 2013 .

[21]  Gregory N. Mandel,et al.  The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks , 2012 .

[22]  M. Siegrist,et al.  Addressing climate change: Determinants of consumers' willingness to act and to support policy measures , 2012 .

[23]  D. Kahan Why we are poles apart on climate change , 2012, Nature.

[24]  Hank C. Jenkins-Smith,et al.  Weather, Climate, and Worldviews: The Sources and Consequences of Public Perceptions of Changes in Local Weather Patterns* , 2012 .

[25]  Robert S. Lichter,et al.  Scientific Assessments of Climate Change Information in News and Entertainment Media , 2012 .

[26]  L. Hamilton,et al.  Public knowledge and concern about polar-region warming , 2012 .

[27]  A. Corner,et al.  Uncertainty, scepticism and attitudes towards climate change: biased assimilation and attitude polarisation , 2012, Climatic Change.

[28]  E. Weber,et al.  Public Understanding of Climate Change in the United States Scientific Understanding of Climate Change These Assess- Ments Support the following Conclusions with High Or , 2011 .

[29]  D. Watts Everything Is Obvious: *Once You Know the Answer , 2011 .

[30]  D. Kahan,et al.  Cultural cognition of scientific consensus , 2011 .

[31]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Everything is obvious : how common sense fails , 2011 .

[32]  Lawrence C. Hamilton,et al.  Education, politics and opinions about climate change evidence for interaction effects , 2011 .

[33]  K. Stanovich Rationality and the Reflective Mind , 2010 .

[34]  S. Schneider,et al.  Expert credibility in climate change , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[35]  Ian J. Deary,et al.  What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought , 2010 .

[36]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Now What Do People Know About Global Climate Change? Survey Studies of Educated Laypeople , 1994, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[37]  S. Embretson Measuring psychological constructs: Advances in model-based approaches. , 2010 .

[38]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. , 2009, Nature nanotechnology.

[39]  P. Doran,et al.  Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change , 2009 .

[40]  A. Falk,et al.  Individual Risk Attitudes: Measurement, Determinants and Behavioral Consequences , 2009 .

[41]  Y. Ganzach,et al.  On the perception and operationalization of risk perception , 2008, Judgment and Decision Making.

[42]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect in Risk Perception , 2007 .

[43]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  The Polls—Review Public Opinion Research and Support for the Iraq War , 2007 .

[44]  D. Kahan The Cognitively Illiberal State , 2007 .

[45]  Jennifer Phillips,et al.  Communication and Mental Processes: Experimental and Analytic Processing of Uncertain Climate Information , 2007 .

[46]  Albert Gore,et al.  An Inconvenient Truth: The Crisis of Global Warming , 2007 .

[47]  E. Weber Experience-Based and Description-Based Perceptions of Long-Term Risk: Why Global Warming does not Scare us (Yet) , 2006 .

[48]  C. K. Mertz,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article Numeracy and Decision Making , 2022 .

[49]  Steven J. Osterlind,et al.  Constructing Test Items: Multiple-Choice, Constructed-Response, Performance and Other Formats , 2006 .

[50]  Andrew Shtulman,et al.  Qualitative differences between naïve and scientific theories of evolution , 2006, Cognitive Psychology.

[51]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  The Psychology of Self‐defense: Self‐Affirmation Theory , 2006 .

[52]  S. Frederick Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 19, Number 4—Fall 2005—Pages 25–42 Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making , 2022 .

[53]  Adam J. Berinsky,et al.  The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls , 2005, Perspectives on Politics.

[54]  George F. Bishop The Illusion of Public Opinion: Fact and Artifact in American Public Opinion Polls , 2004 .

[55]  P. Fayers Item Response Theory for Psychologists , 2004, Quality of Life Research.

[56]  Melissa L. Finucane,et al.  Risk as Analysis and Risk as Feelings: Some Thoughts about Affect, Reason, Risk, and Rationality , 2004, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.

[57]  Geoffrey L. Cohen,et al.  Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. , 2003, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[58]  D. Kahneman Maps of Bounded Rationality: Psychology for Behavioral Economics , 2003 .

[59]  F. Keil Folkscience: coarse interpretations of a complex reality , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[60]  J. Gliem,et al.  Calculating, Interpreting, And Reporting Cronbach’s Alpha Reliability Coefficient For Likert-Type Scales , 2003 .

[61]  E. Weber,et al.  A Domain-Specific Risk-Attitude Scale: Measuring Risk Perceptions and Risk Behaviors , 2002 .

[62]  Christopher K. Hsee,et al.  Risk as Feelings , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[63]  B. Rimer,et al.  General Performance on a Numeracy Scale among Highly Educated Samples , 2001, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[64]  Ron Good,et al.  Students' conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution: Cases of replication and comparison , 1995 .

[65]  D. Rucinski The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. , 1994 .

[66]  H. Wainer,et al.  Differential item functioning , 1995 .

[67]  Amy M. Hightower,et al.  Science and Engineering Indicators , 1993 .

[68]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Why Teach Thinking?-An Essay , 1993 .

[69]  Warren E. Watson,et al.  Cultural diversity''s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diver , 1993 .

[70]  Anton E. Lawson,et al.  Learning about evolution and rejecting a belief in special creation: Effects of reflective reasoning skill, prior knowledge, prior belief and religious commitment , 1992 .

[71]  Robert F. DeVellis,et al.  Scale Development: Theory and Applications. , 1992 .

[72]  Christine E. DeMars,et al.  Item Response Theory , 2010, Assessing Measurement Invariance for Applied Research.

[73]  Gary James Jason,et al.  The Logic of Scientific Discovery , 1988 .

[74]  J. Baron Thinking and Deciding , 2023 .

[75]  Richard Phillips Feynman,et al.  Elementary Particles and the Laws of Physics: The 1986 Dirac Memorial Lectures , 1987 .

[76]  Charles W. Anderson,et al.  Student conceptions of natural selection and its role in evolution , 1986 .

[77]  Philip Yetton,et al.  Individual versus group problem solving: An empirical test of a best-member strategy , 1982 .

[78]  R. Leighton,et al.  Feynman Lectures on Physics , 1971 .

[79]  J. Dewey Science as subject-matter and as method , 1995 .

[80]  J. Dewey THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SCIENCE SCIENCE AS SUBJECT-MATTER AND AS METHOD. , 1910, Science.