Dan Kahan's draft paper showing negative moral hazard - Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: A Cross-Cultural Experiment

[Andrew Lockley]

Dan Kahan seeks prepublication comments of the folloing paper (abs
below): 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/ 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

[Josh Horton]

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

[Ken Caldeira]

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 kcal...@carnegiescience.edu

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab  @kencaldeira

Our YouTube videos

The Great Climate Experiment: How far can we push the planet?  

Carbon turnover rates in the One Tree Island reef: A 40-year perspective

More videos

--
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 geoengi...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[Ken Caldeira]

[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....@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

--

**********************************************
Dan M. Kahan
Elizabeth K. Dollard Professor of Law &
Professor of Psychology 

Yale Law School

http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan/
**********************************************