The study "The Polarizing Impact of Science Literacy and Numeracy on Perceived Climate Change Risks" challenges the commonly held belief that increasing public understanding of science will naturally lead to greater concern and action on climate change. The authors find that as science literacy and numeracy improve, individuals don't necessarily become more concerned about climate change. Instead, they become more polarized in their views based on their cultural values.
Understanding Polarization in Climate Change Perceptions
A groundbreaking study by Dan Kahan and others and his team reveals a counterintuitive aspect of science communication: higher levels of science literacy and numeracy might not bridge the ideological divide over climate change risks; instead, they might deepen it.
Key Findings of the Study
Contradiction to the Deficit Model: The research debunks the "deficit model" of science communication, which suggests that increasing public knowledge about science will lead to greater concern about issues like climate change. Instead, the study found that as people's science literacy and numeracy levels increase, their views on climate change become more strongly aligned with their cultural affiliations.
Cultural Cognition Thesis (CCT): The study supports the CCT, proposing that people's perceptions of societal risks like climate change are shaped by cultural values. People with egalitarian and communitarian worldviews tend to perceive higher risks from climate change, while those with hierarchical and individualistic worldviews perceive lower risks.
Polarization Increases with Science Literacy: Interestingly, the study found that the polarization in climate change risk perceptions increases with science literacy and numeracy. Highly literate and numerate individuals use their cognitive skills to reinforce beliefs supported by their cultural groups, not necessarily to foster a common understanding based on scientific evidence.
Implications for Science Communication
This study suggests that simply improving the public's understanding of science will not resolve the cultural polarization around climate change. Instead, communicators need to address the cultural meanings associated with climate change and employ strategies that resonate across cultural divides. This might involve using diverse communicators who share cultural values with different segments of the audience and framing information in ways that are inclusive of various cultural perspectives.
Conclusion
As we grapple with the urgent need for effective action on climate change, it becomes clear that our approach to science communication needs refinement. Understanding the role of cultural values in shaping perceptions can lead to more effective engagement strategies that bridge ideological divides rather than deepening them.
This study serves as a critical reminder of the complex interplay between knowledge, values, and ideology in public discourse on science and risk. It challenges us to think more deeply about how we communicate about science and how we can foster a more inclusive dialogue around pressing environmental issues.
Comments