"Why do members of the public disagree - sharply and persistently - about facts on which expert scientists largely agree?" This a question Professor Dan Kahan attempts to answer in his recently published research paper titled "Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus." Dan Kahan is the Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law at Yale University whose primary interest concerns cultural cognition, or the "tendency of individuals to conform their beliefs about disputed matters of fact (e.g., whether global warming is a serious threat; whether the death penalty deters murder; whether gun control makes society more safe or less) to values that define their cultural identities." (1)
Kahan obtained a sample of 1,500 people that represented the United States population as a whole. He asked them a series of questions to determine their cultural orientations, which include the following categories:
Hierarchical - strong faith in established institutions, class stratification, and social roles
Individualists - self-made. wary of outside intervention into private matters. people fend for themselves
Egalitarian - desire for equal rights, opportunities, and making things more fair
Communitarian - working together is the best solution for all. strong trust and commitment to one another
Having established what categories the subjects fit into, he was able to conduct an experiment that had two parts. The first part of the experiment was to ask the subjects their opinions on whether they agreed with the following statements:
1. Global temperatures are increasing.
2. Human activity is causing global warming.
3. Radioactive wastes from nuclear pwer can be safely disposed of in deep underground storage facilities.
4. Permitting adults without criminal records or histories of mental illness to carry concealed handguns in public decreases violent crime.
The answers were compared with the findings in a U.S. National Academy of Sciences expert consensus report.
The second part of the experiment was to present the subjects with fake articles written by scientists with fake bios to see which groups considered which authors to be experts in their fields based on the authors' conclusions on the issues of global warming, nuclear waste disposal, and hand gun laws.
RESULTS
Kahan discovered that hierarchical-individualists disagreed that global warming was occurring that that humans were causing it, while the egalitarian-communitarians thought it was happening. The egalitarian-communitarians disagreed that nuclear waste can be stored safely and that the use of handguns decrease violent crime.
It turns out that according to the U.S. National Academy of Sciences report, most scientists believe global temperatures are rising, and that humans are to blame. They also agree that nuclear waste can be safely stored underground. But their findings are inconclusive regarding handguns. This data has been around for a long time. So why is the public still divided over these issues? Are people ignoring the research? Kahan believes that almost nobody is anti-science. Even the most mystical among us uses the scientific method to investigate problems, and subsequently uses the results to reinforce arguments. But when faced with facts that can threaten a person's understanding of the world, they would rather shy away and retreat to their established values than deal with the cognitive dissonance. Hierarchical-individualists are threatened by global warming because it means changing the roles of established institutions. If humans are causing higher CO2 emissions which contribute to the warming, individualists are threatened in their freedom to use as much carbon as they can afford.
With regard to the subjects' opinions about the list of experts, people tended to label an author an expert if their opinions matched their own. This makes sense for the following reasons:
1. People remember experts with whom they agree.
2. People seek out expert opinion that reinforces their beliefs.
3. People differ in opinion on who is an expert.
It is impossible for people to sift through data the same way scientists do. The public relies on information from research studies to be accurately compiled and presented to them from reliable media outlets. If the findings become distorted through the media, then opinions will not accurately reflect a well reasoned investigation on an issue. When faced with facts that threaten their world view, people will avoid the findings and stick with what they already know.
This study was eye-opening for me because I have become so accustomed to labeling groups as liberal or conservative. Kahan does not use these labels because he thinks that they do not predict behavior as accurately as the ones he uses. His conclusion also gave me hope for the future of our democracy. If people are divided based on their cultural values, what is playing out is not a culture war where one side wins and another loses, but rather a difference of opinion due to a lack of deliberation. People are using mental shortcuts to determine their opinions on issues. Lastly, it made me see some of the areas where I could fall into the trap of judging issues not based on deliberate inquiry, but on a bias I have developed from my cultural identity.
To read the full research paper:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1549444
To listen to an interview from Point of Inquiry:
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/dan_kahan_the_american_culture_war_of_fact/
(1.) http://www.culturalcognition.net/
No comments:
Post a Comment