The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks

Abstract

Seeming public apathy over climate change is often attributed to a deficit in comprehension. The public knows too little science, it is claimed, to understand the evidence or avoid being misled1. Widespread limits on technical reasoning aggravate the problem by forcing citizens to use unreliable cognitive heuristics to assess risk2. We conducted a study to test this account and found no support for it. Members of the public with the highest degrees of science literacy and technical reasoning capacity were not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, they were the ones among whom cultural polarization was greatest. This result suggests that public divisions over climate change stem not from the public’s incomprehension of science but from a distinctive conflict of interest: between the personal interest individuals have in forming beliefs in line with those held by others with whom they share close ties and the collective one they all share in making use of the best available science to promote common welfare.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Figure 1: SCT prediction versus actual impact of science literacy and numeracy on climate change risk perceptions.
Figure 2: SCT prediction versus actual impact of the interaction between science literacy and numeracy, on the one hand, and cultural world-views, on the other.

References

  1. 1

    Pidgeon, N. & Fischhoff, B. The role of social and decision sciences in communicating uncertain climate risks. Nature Clim. Change 1, 35–41 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2

    Sunstein, C. R. On the divergent American reactions to terrorism and climate change. Columbia L. Rev. 107, 503–557 (2007).

    Google Scholar 

  3. 3

    Weber, E. U. & Stern, P. C. Public understanding of climate change in the United States. Am. Psychol. 66, 315–328 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4

    Douglas, M. & Wildavsky, A. B. Risk and Culture: An Essay on the Selection of Technical and Environmental Dangers (Univ. California Press, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5

    Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J. & Cohen, G. Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotech. 4, 87–91 (2009).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6

    Kahan, D. M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural cognition of scientific consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147–174 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7

    Pearl, J. Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8

    Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., Sunde, U., Schupp, J. & Wagner, G. G. Individual risk attitudes: Measurement, determinants, and behavioral consequences. J. Eur. Econ. Assoc. 9, 522–550 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9

    Ganzach, Y., Ellis, S., Pazy, A. & Ricci-Siag, T. On the perception and operationalization of risk perception. Judgment Decis. Making 3, 317–324 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10

    Kahneman, D. Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics. Am. Econ. Rev. 93, 1449–1475 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11

    Peters, E., Västfjäll, D., Slovic, P., Mertz, C. K., Mazzocco, K. & Dickert, S. Numeracy and decision making. Psychol. Sci. 17, 407–413 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12

    Liberali, J. M., Reyna, V. F., Furlan, S., Stein, L. M. & Pardo, S. T. Individual differences in numeracy and cognitive reflection, with implications for biases and fallacies in probability judgment. J. Behav. Decis. Makinghttp://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.752 (2011).

  13. 13

    McCright, A. M. & Dunlap, R. E. Cool dudes: The denial of climate change among conservative white males in the United States. Glob. Environ. Change 21, 1163–1172 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14

    Krosnick, J. A., Holbrook, A. L. & Visser, P. S. The impact of the fall 1997 debate about global warming on American public opinion. Public Underst. Sci. 9, 239–260 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15

    Sunstein, C. R. Misfearing: A reply. Harv. L. Rev. 119, 1110–1125 (2006).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16

    Kellstedt, P. M., Zahran, S. & Vedlitz, A. Personal efficacy, the information environment, and attitudes toward global warming and climate change in the United States. Risk Anal. 28, 113–126 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17

    Slovic, P. Trust, emotion, sex, politics, and science: Surveying the risk-assessment battlefield. Risk Anal. 19, 689–701 (1999).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. 18

    Cohen, G. L. Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 808–822 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19

    Downs, A. An Economic Theory of Democracy (Harper, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20

    Chen, S., Duckworth, K. & Chaiken, S Motivated heuristic and systematic processing. Psychol. Inq. 10, 44–49 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21

    Giner-Sorolla, R. & Chaiken, S. Selective use of heuristic and systematic processing under defense motivation. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 23, 84–97 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22

    Kahan, D. Fixing the communications failure. Nature 463, 296–297 (2010).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23

    Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behav. Brain Sci. 34, 57–74 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24

    Hardin, G. The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243–1248 (1968).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25

    Nisbet, M. C. in Communicating Science: New Agendas in Communication 41–67 (Routledge, 2010).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26

    National Science Board Science and Engineering Indicators, 2010 (National Science Foundation, 2010).

  27. 27

    Allum, N., Sturgis, P., Tabourazi, D. & Brunton-Smith, I. Science knowledge and attitudes across cultures: A meta-analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 17, 35–54 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28

    Weller, J., Dieckmann, N. F., Tusler, M., Mertz, C. K., Burns, W. & Peters, E. Development and testing of an abbreviated numeracy scale: A rasch analysis approach J. Behav. Decis. Making http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1751 (2012).

  29. 29

    Frederick, S. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspectives 19, 25–42 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30

    Berry, W. D. & Feldman, S. Multiple Regression in Practice 48 (Sage University Papers Series, Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences no. 07-050, Sage Publications, 1985).

Download references

Acknowledgements

Research for this paper was financially supported by the National Science Foundation, Grant SES 0922714.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

D.M.K., E.P., M.W. and L.L.O. contributed to all aspects of the paper, including study design, statistical analysis and writing and revisions. P.S., D.B. and G.M. contributed to the design of the study, to substantive analysis of the results and to revisions of the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan M. Kahan.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing financial interests.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Kahan, D., Peters, E., Wittlin, M. et al. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim Change 2, 732–735 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1547

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter for a daily update on COVID-19 science.
Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing