[Dan Kahan's response. Bounced likely because he is not a group member.] On Sat, Aug 25, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Dan Kahan <dan.ka...@yale.edu> wrote:
> Thanks, Ken. > The individual differences are what interest me most. people don't tend to > respond in uniform ways -- either hope/determination or complacency, e.g., > -- when furnished information on risk (or on risk abatement). rather they > react in a manner that reflects the fit between the cultural meaning of the > information & their own cultural predispositions. > --Dan > > On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:12 PM, Ken Caldeira < > kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu> wrote: > >> I have seen this phenomena among audiences in talks that I have given. >> >> I think that some people who deny the reality of human-induced climate >> change do so in part as a psychological defense mechanism -- if a problem >> seems too large to solve, there may be a psychological advantage in denying >> that the problem exists. >> >> The appearance of a potential solution, even if illusory, gives people >> the psychological space to admit the problem. >> >> _______________ >> Ken Caldeira >> >> Carnegie Institution for Science >> Dept of Global Ecology >> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA >> +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu >> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira >> >> *Our YouTube videos* >> The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the >> planet?<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce2OWROToAI> >> >> Carbon turnover rates in the One Tree Island reef: A 40-year >> perspective<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnCt5NXL_U0> >> More videos <http://www.youtube.com/user/CarnegieGlobEcology/videos> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 7:53 AM, Josh Horton >> <joshuahorton...@gmail.com>wrote: >> >>> In addition to the moral hazard issue, this study also presents evidence >>> suggesting that discussions of geoengineering can have a depolarizing >>> effect on the wider climate change debate. In essence, the argument is >>> that geoengineering doesn't carry the same amount of cultural/political >>> baggage as other, more charged aspects of the climate debate (for example, >>> implicit anti-capitalism), and so allows for a less intense, more >>> deliberative focus on the facts. The authors point out that this doesn't >>> necessarily lead to greater support for geoengineering, just a more >>> considered debate. >>> >>> Josh Horton >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 22, 2012 2:52:25 AM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >>> >>>> Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs >>>> below): >>>> http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/**papers.cfm?abstract_id=**1981907#<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907#> >>>> >>>> This is the 3rd or 4th study I've seen (including my own) which found >>>> negative moral hazard. There have been no findings of positive moral >>>> hazard in any study of which I'm aware. >>>> >>>> Dan works on the Yale cultural cognition project >>>> http://www.culturalcognition.**net/ <http://www.culturalcognition.net/> >>>> Please note his email, cc and >>>> dan....@yale.edu for comments. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> >>>> A >>>> >>>> Abstract: >>>> We 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 in forming perceptions of risk. The logic of the >>>> cultural cognition thesis suggests the potential value of a >>>> distinctive two-channel science communication strategy that combines >>>> information content (“Channel 1”) with cultural meanings (“Channel 2”) >>>> selected to promote open-minded assessment of information across >>>> diverse communities. In the study, scientific information content on >>>> climate change was held constant while the cultural meaning of that >>>> 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 CO2 >>>> emissions helps to offset cultural polarization over the validity of >>>> climate-change science. We also tested the hypothesis, derived from >>>> competing models of science communication, that exposure to >>>> information on geoengineering would provoke discounting of >>>> climate-change risks generally. Contrary to this hypothesis, we found >>>> that subjects exposed to information about geoengineering were >>>> slightly more concerned about climate change risks than those assigned >>>> to a control condition. >>>> >>>> Number of Pages in PDF File: 41 >>>> >>>> Keywords: climate change, geoengineering, cultural cognition, risk >>>> perception >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "geoengineering" group. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/WY24Zt6j0NQJ. >>> >>> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. >>> >> >> > > > -- > * > * > > ********************************************** > Dan M. Kahan > Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law & > Professor of Psychology > Yale Law School > http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/ > ********************************************** > > * > * > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
