Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication l Experiment CCP Working Paper No. 92Geoengineering and Climate Change PolarizationTesting a Two-channel Model of Science CommunicationDan M. KalianYale UniversityCarol L. Silva Center for Applied Research University of OklahomaTor Tarantola Cambridge UniversityHank Jenkins-SmithCenter for Applied R Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication esearch University of OklahomaDonald Braman George Washington University School of LawAcknowledgments. Research for this paper was funded by the CultuGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
ral Cognition Lab at Yale Law School and by the Center for Applied Research at the University' of Oklahoma. The authors are gratefill to Maggie WjttliAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication ool. PO Box 208215. New Haven. CT 06520. Email: dan.kahan@yale.edu.AbstractWe conducted a two-nation study (United States, n - 1500; England, n - 1500) to test a novel theory of science communication. The cultural cognition thesis posits that individuals make extensive reliance on cultural meanings Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a distinctive two-channel science communicaGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
tion strategy' that combines information content (“Channel 1") with cultural meanings ("Channel 2”) selected to promote open-minded assessment of infoAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication t information was experimentally manipulated. Consistent with the study hypotheses, we found that making citizens aware of the potential contribution of geoengineering as a supplement to restriction of CO; emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of climate-change science. W Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication e also tested the hypothesis, derived from competing models of science communication, that exposure to information on geoengineering would provoke disGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
counting of climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were slighAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication n earnest. From the erection of lowering “carbon scrubbers" to the launching of nanotechnology solar reflectors; from seeding the ocean with iron pellets to injecting aerosol particulates into the stratosphere—■■ ‘geoengineering* refers to deliberate, large-scale manipulations of Earth's environment Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication designed to offset some of the harmful consequences of [greenhouse-gas induced] climate change" (National Research Council 2010). impetus for the devGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
elopment of such technologies comes from mounting evidence of both the inability of industrial societies to muster the political will to curb CO - emiAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication y of Sciences (National Research Council 2010, 2011) and the Royal Society (2009) in the U.K. and are among the preeminent scientific authorities that have issued preliminary reports calling for stepped up research efforts to develop geoengineering—and to assess the risks that resorting to it might Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication itself pose to the physical environment. The Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (1PCC) likewise incorporates altGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
ernative geoengineering-development scenarios into its climate models (IPCC 2013).This paper addresses the contribution geoengineering might make to aAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication ting to climate change. The scientific exploration of geoengineering as a policy response. we conclude, could have an important impact on pubhc debate not just because of the factual information it is likely to yield but also because of the cultural message it is likely to express about what it mean Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication s to regard climate change as a serious problem.Guided by a theory of how cultural meanings influence public perceptions of risk, we conducted a studyGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
to assess how being made aware of geoengineering might affect the receptivity- of citizens to sound scientific information on climate change. The stuAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication e foundthat groups of citizens disposed by opposing cultural values to form conflicting assessments of the risks of climate change became less polarized over scientific evidence when they learned that geoengineering is under consideration as a potential solution.Following a brief discussion of the t Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication heoretical framework that informed its design, we describe the study and report the results. We then discuss the implications of our findings for theGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
role of geoengineering in debates over climate change, and for the importance of taking cultural meanings into account in science conununication generAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication -han. Slovic. Braman & Gastil 2006). The first is the rational-weigher model, which posits that members of the public, in aggregate and over time, can be expected to process information about risk in a manner that promotes their expected utility (Stan 1969). The second IS the irrational-weigher mode Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication l, which asserts tliat ordinary members of the pubic lack the ability to reliably advance their expected utility because their assessment of risk infoGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
rmation IS constrained by cognitive biases and other manifestations of bounded rationality (Kahneman 2003: Sunstein 2005: Weber 2006).Neither of theseAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication enage girls for HPV. and the removal of restrictions on carrying concealed handguns in public. Such disputes conspicuously feature partisan divisions over facts that admit of scientific investigation. Nothing in the rational-weigher model predicts that people with different values or opposing politi Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication cal commitments will draw radically different inferences from common information. Likewise, nothing in the irrational-weigher model suggests that peopGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
le who subscribe to one set of values are any more or less bounded in their rationality than those who subscribe to any other, or that cognitive biaseAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication or such conflict is the cultural cognition thesis (CCT). CCT says that cultural values are cognitively prior to facts in public risk conflicts: as a result of a complex of interrelated psychological mechanisms, groups of individuals will credit and dismiss evidence of risk in patterns that reflect a Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication nd reinforce their distinctive understandings of how society should be organized (Kahan. Braman. Cohen. Gastil & Slovic 2010; Jenkins-Smith & Herron 2Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
009). Thus, persons with individualistic values can be expected to be relatively dismissive of environmental and technological risks, which if widely Annals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication ith hierarchical values, who see assertions of environmental risk as indictments of social elites. Individuals with egalitarian and communitarian values, in contrast, see commerce and industry as sources of unjust disparity and symbols of noxious self-seeking, and thus readily credit assertions that Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication these activities are hazardous and therefore worthy of regulation (Douglass & Wildavsky 1982). Observational and experimental studies have linked theGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
se and comparable sets of outlooks to myriad risk controversies, including the one over climate change (Kahan 2012).Individuals, on the OCT account, bAnnals of American Academy of Political & Social Science (in press)formerly Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication 06). The beliefs any individual forms on societal risks like climate change—whether right or wrong—do not meaningfully affect his or her personal exposure to those risks. However, precisely because positions on those issues are commonly understood to cohere with allegiance to one or another cultural Geoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication style, taking a position at odds with the dominant view in his or her cultural group is likely to compromise that individual's relationship With otheGeoengineering and climate change polarization testing a two channel science communication
rs on whom that individual depends for emotional and material support. As individuals, citizens are thus likely to do better in their daily lives whenGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook