SCI 256 People Science and The Environment Table

Create a common theme table from the attached articles

Please complete an annotations common theme theme table from the articles i attached. Ensure to include common themes from each article and remember to use snippet annotations in your paper.

SUBJECTIVE Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change
ANNOTATIONS unrelated to science literacy.
Karen N. Peart
Yale News
May 29, 2012
Retrieved from http://news.yale.edu/2012/05/29/yalestudy-concludes-public-apathy-over-climate-changeunrelated-science-literacy
1.
2.
3.
Are members of the public divided about climate
change because they don’t understand the science
behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and
were more proficient in technical reasoning, would
public consensus match scientific consensus?
A study published … online in the
journal Nature Climate Change suggests that the answer
to both questions is no. Indeed, as members of the
public become more science literate and numerate, the
study found, individuals belonging to opposing cultural
groups become even more divided on the risks that
climate change poses.
Funded by the National Science Foundation, the study
was conducted by researchers associated with the
Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School and
involved a nationally representative sample of 1500 U.S.
adults.
“The aim of the study was to test two hypotheses,” said
Dan Kahan, Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law and
Professor of Psychology at Yale Law School and a
member of the study team. “The first attributes political
controversy over climate change to the public’s limited
ability to comprehend science, and the second, to
opposing sets of cultural values. The findings supported
the second hypothesis and not the first,” he said.
“Cultural cognition” is the term used to describe the
process by which individuals’ group values shape their
perceptions of societal risks. It refers to the unconscious
tendency of people to fit evidence of risk to positions
that predominate in groups to which they belong. The
results of the study were consistent with previous
studies that show that individuals with more egalitarian
values disagree sharply with individuals who have more
OBJECTIVE
ANNOTATIONS
There is no
division amongst
the public
Science literacy
leads to opposing
views
The public
remains resolute
about science
Culture is more
significant to
climate change
Values and beliefs
shape our
thinking
Group decisions
are more valid
4.
individualistic ones on the risks associated with nuclear
power, gun possession, and the HPV vaccine for school
girls.
than individual
decisions
In this study, researchers measured “science literacy”
with test items developed by the National Science
Foundation. They also measured their subjects’
“numeracy”—that is, their ability and disposition to
understand quantitative information.
The power of
science literacy
“In effect,” Kahan said, “ordinary members of the
public credit or dismiss scientific information on
disputed issues based on whether the information
strengthens or weakens their ties to others who share
their values. At least among ordinary members of the
public, individuals with higher science comprehension
are even better at fitting the evidence to their group
commitments.”
Kahan said that the study supports no inferences about
the reasoning of scientific experts in climate change.
The power to
interpret info
according to
numbers
Different test
items by the NSF
The general public
is will deny any
info that affects
their rlship
Others will accept
it as long as it
touches their
beliefs
There is a division
of class in the
general public
5.
6.
Researcher Ellen Peters of Ohio State University said
that people who are higher in numeracy and science
literacy usually make better decisions in complex
technical situations, but the study clearly casts doubt on
the notion that the more you understand science and
math, the better decisions you’ll make in complex and
technical situations. “What this study shows is that
people with high science and math comprehension can
think their way to conclusions that are better for them
as individuals but are not necessarily better for society.”
Educated
members will
make complex
decisions
According to Kahan, the study suggests the need for
science communication strategies that reflect a more
sophisticated understanding of cultural values.
Recommendationeffective cultural
strategies
Education leads to
individualism
“More information can help solve the climate change
conflict,” Kahan said, “but that information has to do
more than communicate the scientific evidence. It also
has to create a climate of deliberations in which no
group perceives that accepting any piece of evidence is
akin to betrayal of their cultural group.”
Sufficient
information will
lead to better
understanding
Communication
has to be effective
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2012-05-yale-apathy-climate-unrelated-science.html#jCp
How culture shapes thc climate change debate
Hoffman, Andrew J
2015
Stanford University Press Stanford, California
SUBJECTIVE
ANNOTATIONS
ORIGINAL
1.
Chapter header: Climate Change As A Cultural
Issue
2.
The pages that follow, collect, summarize, and
consider the growing body of social science
research that seeks to explain why many people
accept the science of climate changes while
others do not. Social scientists view the public
understanding of climate change not as a lack of
adequate information but as the intentional or
unintentional avoidance of that information.
That avoidance is rooted in our culture and
psychology and can be summarized in four
central points.
3.
4.
We all use cognitive filters. While physical
scientists explore the mechanics and implications
of a changing climate, the social scientist
explores the cultural and cognitive reasons why
people support or reject their conclusions. What
social scientists find is that physical scientists do
not have the final word in public debate. Instead,
we interpret and validate conclusions from the
scientific community by filtering their statements
through our own world- views. Through what is
called motivated reasoning, we relate to climate
change through our prior ideological
preferences, personal experiences, and
knowledge. We search for information and reach
conclusions about highly complex and politically
contested issues in a way that will lead us to find
supportive evidence of four pre-existing beliefs.
Our cognitive filters reflect our cultural identity.
We tend to develop worldviews that are
consistent with the values held by others within
OBJECTIVE
ANNOTATIONS
• Denial is
intentional
• Lack of info play a
minor role in denial
• Culture influences
avoidance
• Conclusions are
through personal
experience
• Pple reason
differently- thus
different
conclusions
• Reasoning needs
evidence
5.
the groups with which we self-identify. In what
Yale University law and psychology professor Dan
Kahan calls cultural cognition, we are influenced
by group values and will generally endorse the
position that most directly reinforces the
connections we have with others in our social
groups. It is not necessarily that we reject
scientific conclusions in this process, but that
they are weighted and valued differently
depending on how our friends, colleagues,
trusted sources, or respected leaders value and
frame these issues. We are the product of our
surroundings (both chosen and unchosen) and
gravitate towards opinions that fit with those of
the people with whom we identify. As such,
positions on topical and controversial issues like
climate change become part of our cultural
identity.
Cultural groups
influence pples
attitude
Groups generate
response
Cultural identity can overpower scientific
reasoning. When belief or disbelief in climate
change becomes connected to our cultural
identity, contrary scientific evidence can actually
make us more resolute in resisting conclusions
that are at variance with our cultural beliefs.
Research by sociologists Aaron McCright from
Michigan State University and Riley Dunlap from
Oklahoma State University found that increased
education and self-reported understanding of
climate science corresponds with greater
concern among those who already believe in
climate change but less concern among those
who do not. Kahan and colleagues have found
that “members of the public with the highest
degrees of science literacy and technical
reasoning capacity … were the ones among
whom cultural polarization was greatest.” In
short, increased knowledge tends to strengthen
our position on climate change, regardless of
what that position is. This conclusion challenges
the common assumption that more scientific
information will help convince Americans of the
need to deal with climate change. Instead, the
key to engaging the debate is addressing the
Pple tend to consider
CL beliefs comp to SK
Opinions reflect the
society pple live in
Cultural identity
ensure people think
unanimously
Pple will resist scntfc
evid. If matchd with
their values and
beliefs
McCright (r/ship btn
eductin and climate
change)
Kahan (culture
influences sci literacy
individuals)
The more pple learn
the more they belief
about climate change
Therefor, culture
override scientific
know on CL change.
Objective Question
Does it mean that
despite the level of
deeper ideological, cultural, and social filters that
are triggered by this issue.
6.
7.
Our political economy creates inertia for change.
We cannot discuss the social processes that
guide our thinking without also considering the
economic, political, and technological realities
that are both the enactment of our values and a
source of inertia to changing them. First, there is
a vast physical infrastructure around fossil fuels
and the lifestyle they create, which cannot be
replaced easily. Second, there are strong
economic and political interests that are
threatened by the issue of climate change (many
of them controlling the infrastructure just
mentioned). As a result, they have adopted
strategies to confuse and polarize the debate in
order to protect their interests. Efforts to change
cultural views on climate change must include
changing the vast institutions and infrastructure
of our economy and must be prepared to deal
with resistance from those who benefit from
them.
These four points form the central thesis of this
book. The debate over climate change in the
United States (and elsewhere) is not about
carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas models; it is
about opposing cultural values and worldviews
through which that science is seen. Those
cultural values create a pattern of shared basic
assumptions that tell us the correct way to
perceive, think, and feel in relation to problems
and situations we face. They furnish us with
guidelines for practical action, providing us with
a road map, if you will, a way of understanding
how the world works, how it ought to work, and
how we behave within it. As a result, when
different groups view the same science through
opposing cultural lenses, they see something
very different.
scientific knowledge
people will address
climate change
according to their
values and beliefs?
Pltcl economy leads to
change
Climate change
threatens politics
Pple deny change to
protect their interests
Some pple benefit
from the change
Political interests
affect climate change
negatively
It is all about culture
Values and beliefs are
more significant in
change
Culture shapes the
way pple feel or think
Groups think
differently
8.
In the United States today, opposing cultural
worldviews map onto our partisan political
system: the majority of Democrats believe in
climate change, the majority of Republicans do
not. Battle lines drawn, the social debate around
climate change is now devolving into a “cultural
schism” in which opposing sides do not debate
the same issues, seek only information that
supports their position or disconfirms the
other’s, and begin to demonize those who
disagree with them. With time, our positions
become relatively rigid and exclusive, thickening
the boundaries between cultural communities. In
essence, we begin to identify the members of
our group (or tribe), and therefore those whom
we trust, on the basis of their position on specific
issues, like climate change. In his book The
Honest Roger Pielke Jr., professor of
environmental studies at the University of
Colorado, compares the extremes of such
schisms to “abortion politics,” where those
opposing abortion frame it as an issue of “life,”
those favoring it, as an issue of a woman’s
“choice,” and where each side invokes broader
logics around religion, family, and freedom to
support its views. With time, Pielke warns, “no
amount of scientific information … can reconcile
the different values.” Extreme positions
dominate the conversation, the potential for
discussion or resolution disintegrates, and the
issue becomes intractable.
Examples of cultural
grps – Democrats &
Republicans
Groups supports their
opinions
A group can make
decisions for a society
According to Pielke,
the opposing will
support their view
effectively
Scientific
information will
soon lose meaning
on climate change
COMMON THEMES
Annot. from
Norgaard (2012)
Annot. from Hoffman
(2015)
Annot. from Peart
(2012)
1.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
2.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate Denial: Emotion, Psychology, Culture, and Political
Economy.
Kari Marie Norgaard
The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society.
January 2012
SUBJECTIVE doi: 80195566600.003.0027
ANNOTATIONS
1.
For nearly twenty years the majority of research on climate
change from both disciplines presumed information was
the limiting factor in public non-response. The thinking was
that, ‘if people only knew the facts,’ they would act
differently. These studies emphasized either the complexity
of climate science or political economic corruption as
reasons people do not adequately understand what is at
stake. Given the complexity of climate change, it is not
surprising that these researchers found evidence of
conceptual misunderstanding.
2.
Systematic reviews of surveys and polling data by Nisbet
and Myers (2007) and Brewer (2005) describe widespread
misunderstanding regarding climate science extending back
into the 1980s. Researchers have lamented the confusion
between global warming and the ozone hole (e.g. Bell 1994;
Bostrom et al. 1994; Read et al. 1994), investigated the role
of media framing (Bell 1994; Ungar 1992; Brossard et al.
2004; Dispensa and Brulle 2003; Weiskel 2005; Carvalho
2007), and described how understanding global warming
requires a complex grasp of scientific knowledge in many
fields (Moser and Dilling 2007). Recent work by Sterman
and Sweeney (2007) examines public misperceptions of
climate models as a cause for inaction. Similarly, working
from the assumption that information limits present
engagement, psychologists Grame Halford and Peter
Sheehan write, ‘With better mental models and more
appropriate analogies for global change issues, it is likely
that more people, including more opinion leaders, will
make the decision to implement some positive coping
action of a precautionary nature’ (1991: 606).
3.
Yet as Read (et al. 1994) pointed out more than a decade
ago, only two simple facts are essential to understanding
climate change: global warming is the result of an increase
in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the earth’s
atmosphere, and the single most important source of
carbon dioxide is the combustion of fossil fuels, most
notably coal and oil. So how can it be that people around
OBJECTIVE
ANNOTATIONS
the world fail to understand these basic facts? And while
such ‘information deficit’ explanations are indispensable,
they do not account for the behavior of the significant
number of people who know about global warming and
express concern, yet still fail to take any action.
4.
A second body of scholarship points to relationships
between political economy and public perception. Here
scholars have identified the fossil fuel industry influence on
government policy (the US holds prominent examples), the
tactics of climate skeptic campaigns (Jacques 2009; Dunlap
and McCright in this volume; Jacques et al. 2008; McCright
and Dunlap 2000, 2003), how corporate control of media
limits and molds available information about global
warming (Dispensa and Brulle 2003), and even the ‘normal’
distortion of climate science through the ‘balance as bias
phenomenon’ in journalism (Boykoff 2008).
5.
Presumably such political economic barriers have farreaching and interactive effects with the other factors
discussed above. Yet note that explanations for public nonresponse that highlight corporate media and climate
skeptic campaigns, also implicitly direct our attention to a
lack of information as the biggest barrier to engagement,
though for different reasons. Certainly there are cases
when the public may either lack information or be outright
misinformed, but are these issues the limiting factor behind
greater public interest, concern, or political participation?
Clearly knowledge is necessary to generate public response
(e.g. O’Connor et al. 2002), but is knowledge sufficient
(Bord et al. 2000)?
6.
A third body of scholarship applies psychological theories
on cognitive dissonance, efficacy, and helping behavior to
climate change concept of cognitive dissonance describes
‘dissonance’ as a condition which emerges when an actor
has two thoughts (cognitions) that are inconsistent. This
dissonance is an unpleasant condition which people seek to
resolve, often through changing one of their cognitions.
Studies drawing upon these frameworks point to multiple
factors that would seem to ‘complicate’ how people
process information on climate change. For example, Paul
Kellstedt and colleagues (2008) have found that increased
levels of information about global warming
have a negative effect on concern and sense of personal
responsibility. In particular, respondents who are better
informed about climate change feel less rather than more
responsible for it. Furthermore, they find that ‘in sharp
contrast with the knowledge-deficit hypothesis,
respondents with higher levels of information about global
warming show less concern’ (120). Note that these findings
are in accordance with cognitive dissonance because
people with low self-efficacy will be likely to deny
responsibility and concern since unless they feel able to do
something about the problem, an awareness of concern or
responsibility would be conflicting cognitions. Similarly,
Krosnic et al. (2006) observe that people stopped paying
attention to global climate change when they realized that
there is no easy solution for it. Instead they note that many
people judge as serious only those problems for which they
think action can be taken. In a third highly relevant
application, Cynthia Frantz and Stephan Mayer (2009) apply
a classic model of helping behavior to the public response
to climate change. Based on the criteria of this model, the
authors note that climate change is difficult to notice, is
marked by a diffusion of responsibility, and there are
psychological costs of acting, each of which inhibit the
likelihood of individual response.
7.
While emphasizing many important factors, the above
exclude either the emotional and psychological complexity
of our response to climate change, or the significance of
political economy in shaping that response. Yet interesting
results emerge when these two are integrated. Norwegian
sociologist Hanno Sandvik (2008) reports a negative
association between concern for climate change and
national wealth, and a ‘marginally significant’ tendency that
nations’ per capita carbon dioxide emissions are negatively
correlated to public concern. Sandvik writes, ‘these findings
suggest that the willingness of a nation to contribute to
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions decreases with its
share of these emissions’ (333). Although Sandvik is the
first to explicitly test a relationship between wealth and
concern, his findings are in accordance with earlier work.
For example, Zahran et al. (2006) found that citizens
residing in US states with higher emissions of climate gases
are somewhat less likely to support climate change policies.
O’Connor et al. (2002) found that higher income negatively
affected participants’ willingness to take actions such as
driving less. Similarly, an inverse relationship between
wealth and concern is also reported in Dunlap’s 1998 crossnational research, but with a smaller sample of nations.
Furthermore, there are no examples of the reverse
relationship, in which higher income is positively correlated
with concern or support for climate protection policy. Note
that these studies contradict Inglehart’s (1990) theory of
post-materialism in which modernization and wealth
promote greater environmental concern amongst citizens.