follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« Is "shaming" an effective way to counteract biased information processing? A preliminary investigation | Main | Science of Science Communication 2.0, Session 8.1: Emerging technologies part I »

Submerged ... 

But will surface in near future -- w/ results of new study ....

Prize for anyone who correctly predicts what it is about; 2 prizes if predict result.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (11)

Disentanglement principle.
or "how not to shoot your self in the foot while trying to make friends and influence people".

March 7, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterCortlandt Wilson

==> " Prize for anyone who correctly predicts what it is about; 2 prizes if predict result."

1. Cultural cognition.
2. It exists.

March 7, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterJoshua

Hope there are no significance tests in it! ;-)

March 8, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

US science communication blockage: See also the video of US scientists talking at the Governor.

Chinese science communication blockage:

But now see what China is apparently banning:

March 8, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

1. We know lay people suffer from cultural cognition on culturally divisive issues; is there evidence that judges do as well?

2. Judges do suffer from cultural cognition, but the effects are more muted when compared to those seen in lay people, suggesting judicial training/socialization does create positive counter-pressures.

March 9, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterRob Robinson

Rob Robinson raises an interesting point. I think that scientists receive similar training. These are reasons why civilizations can make progress. Public education can, IMHO, play a similar role, or not, in developing critical thinking skills that enable people to be better able to think outside of the box they happen to find themselves in.

Isn't that essentially why some Oklahoma legislators wanted to block Advanced Placement courses?

At any rate, I'm hoping for some ways forward.

March 9, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis

Research suggested by the climate (adaption) efforts in Florida -- the ones you posted about several times.
It seemed to me that the Florida case de-emphasized climate change and focused instead to responding to climate challenges in we can project will re-occur based upon recorded history.

* Action more likely results from a focus on what is known and has been experienced by individuals.
* Value of a "no-regrets" policy".
* Value of goals that are at least partly achievable in the shorter term.
* Less reliance on controverted science (including science that is relatively speaking prediction rich but validation poor)
* Value of designing approaches that bypass the predictable cultural cognition traps.
* Value of focusing on policy responses instead of using science as a proxy for policy debates.

(I'm probably just catching up with others but I've been thinking about how to define "politicized science" operationally. I'm thinking one important indicator is seen when actors who desire a certain policy change focus instead on arguing the science.

For instance Mike is an outstanding engineer of impressive accomplishments who is pushing for higher vaccination rates in this country and globally. In his online communication Mike puts a strong focus on talking about trends in vaccination rates and trends in disease outbreaks such as measles. But many the the "FACTS" Mike presented were wrong, weakly supported or sometimes just presented as obviously correct. This is especially ironic because Mike also like to post about "good science", pseudoscience, etc.
While Mike stresses the science he says nothing about his personal motivations and interests in the topic. Thus we don't hear the type of compelling personal story that often is effective in influencing others.
While I too wish for the increased herd immunity Mike seeks I have reservations about the impact that actors such as Mike have on influencing a) state policy and b) on the remaining minority of the non- or under-vaccinated.

March 9, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterCortlandt Wilson

Research on how to better communicate the science of science communication. That is to say the science of how to better communicate . . . & so on. (-:
That idea was sparked by this:

"What do we know about the design of international treaties, and what influences their effectiveness? What do we know about whether the treaties we've had so far, like the Kyoto Protocol, have had any impact on behavior?" asked David Victor, an international relations professor at University of California, San Diego, and one of the participants in the Berlin meeting of social scientists. "Those are classic social science questions. We have a lot of research tools to answer questions like that, and when we provide the answers, the governments freak out."

March 9, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterCortlandt Wilson

Dan is going to do the science of science communication and deliver to us the mechanisms for enlightened self government. We will calm down, cool down and live happily ever after.

He already gave a Florida example. Maybe using Australia this time?

As per the abstract to his most recent work:

"This essay (forthcoming in the Journal of Science Communication) seeks to explain what the “science of science communication” is by doing it. Surveying studies of cultural cognition and related dynamics, it demonstrates how the form of disciplined observation, measurement, and inference distinctive of scientific inquiry can be used to test rival hypotheses on the nature of persistent public conflict over societal risks; indeed, it argues that satisfactory insight into this phenomenon can be achieved only by these means, as opposed to the ad hoc story-telling dominant in popular and even some forms of scholarly discourse. Synthesizing the evidence, the essay proposes that conflict over what is known by science arises from the very conditions of individual freedom and cultural pluralism that make liberal democratic societies distinctively congenial to science. This tension, however, is not an “inherent contradiction”; it is a problem to be solved—by the science of science communication understood as a “new political science” for perfecting enlightened self-government."

March 10, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis


I think you are disqualified.

March 10, 2015 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

What would be interesting is some experimental confirmation of Roger Peilke Jr's theory of communication espoused in "The Honest Broker". In particular:

** Once a subject is introduced to the advocate / stealth advocate framework can they pick out examples of each with some level of inter-rater agreement?
** Is the "stealth advocate" mode counter-productive?
** Once a member of the public is aware of the advocate / stealth advocate / honest broker of options / science arbitrator framework is there good inter-rater reliability (or agreement)?
** Does different rater's position on a science/policy issue correlate with inter-rater agreement?

March 15, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterCortlandt Wilson

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>