Knowledge Helps: Mechanistic Information and Numeric Evidence as Cognitive Levers to Overcome Stasis and Build Public Consensus on Climate Change

(2013). In M. Knauff, M. Pauen, N. Sebanz, & I. Wachsmuth (Eds.) Proceedings of 35 th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2070- 2075). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society. Knowledge Helps: Mechanistic Information and Numeric Evidence as Cognitive Levers to Overcome Stasis and Build Public Consensus on Climate Change Dav Clark (davclark@berkeley.edu) 1 Michael Andrew Ranney (ranney@berkeley.edu) 1,2 Jacqueline Felipe (felipe.jacqueline@gmail.com) 2 Department of Psychology, 3210 Tolman Hall; Berkeley, CA 94720-1650 USA Graduate School of Education, 4533 Tolman Hall; Berkeley, CA 94720-1670 USA A clear, growing consensus indicates an urgent need for humans to reduce the burgeoning effects of global climate change (“global warming” or GW). Apt public instruction seems central to achieving critical behavioral changes, but some researchers suggest that U.S. climate attitudes are doomed to cognitive stasis (i.e., that little will be gained by educating the public). Herein are four studies that counter the stasis view. Our laboratory has previously reported findings that (1) virtually no Americans know the basic climate change mechanism, yet it (2) is quickly learned (in a few minutes, e.g., with a 400-word text), which (3) increases climate change acceptance. Below, Studies 1 and 4 replicate and extend these results to demonstrate (a) efficacy with an online presentation and broader populations and (b) retention up to a month after learning the mechanism. Studies 2-4 explore roles for germane numerical information using estimation with feedback. Study 2 shows that (d) misleading, cherry-picked, statistics can decrease climate change acceptance (and shake metacognition), while Studies 3 and 4 show that (e) surprising scientific information must be presented with care for it to foster beliefs in line with climate science’s consensus. In sum, contrary to unnecessarily pessimistic (and correlational) stasis arguments, highly germane science information can clearly change the public’s understandings and opinions. Keywords: cognitive change, science education, explanation, climate change, global warming, acceptance, mechanism. Climate Change as a Behavioral Problem Our atmosphere’s carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) concentration is higher now than in any of the past 15 million years (World Bank, 2012). Global warming (GW) akin to recent trends last occurred over 17 million years ago, when a 3-4°C gain occurred over 1,500,000 years. Standard models show that continuing our current behavior will yield similar warming in just 100 years. In previous warming periods of this magnitude, widespread extinctions occurred. With imminent warming 10,000+ times faster than historical timescales, the biological systems we depend upon (e.g., for food) will clearly be severely impacted (Barnosky, 2009). Nearly all climate researchers have concluded that the problem is urgent and anthropogenic (i.e., essentially 100% human- caused). It is thus behavioral, and will be solved only by changes in human behavior. The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and Skeptical Science have assembled and disseminated the scientific consensus on GW, but, sadly, the U.S. public is still divided on both GW’s existence and its cause (cf. Hoffman, 2011). A group of climate communication researchers, oddly, suggests that educational ventures would be of little or no help. Kahan et al. (2012) found (through correlational means) that, for the U.S. (a high per-capita carbon user), direct cognitive approaches (including numeracy and science education) seem to solidify biased views–– reinforcing a kind of cognitive stasis for GW attitudes. This is reminiscent of Lord, Ross, and Lepper (1979), in which people with a strong position tended to polarize further after receiving (not particularly factual) information contrary to their views. Similarly, McCright and Dunlap (2011) highlight data indicating that climate-relevant effects of “education level” are moderated by conservatism or party. (Conservative or “Republican” GW denial was slightly positively related, if at all, with education.) This (also correlational) evidence, they claim, disproves a naive “knowledge deficit” view––the view that more education can shift the public’s beliefs toward the scientific consensus about climate change. However, their own work shows that liberals and conservatives tend to obtain different kinds of information. This split leaves open the possibility that well- constructed interventions may well induce conservatives to accept the scientific consensus (with little challenge to their core values). Indeed, Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Vaughan (2013) show that offering climate scientists’ consensus boosts anthropogenic climate change acceptance. Our laboratory has provided arguments and many experimental findings that run counter to these “polarization” and cognitive stasis views: For instance, even a small amount of true information can quickly act as a cognitive “lever” to enhance one’s understanding and perspective on climate change (Ranney et al., 2012a)––and many other social issues (e.g., abortion and immigration)–– and even using just a single number/statistic (Garcia de Osuna, Ranney, & Nelson, 2004; Munnich et al., 2003; Ranney et al., 2008). Below, we offer further experimental results that counter the stasis view for climate education. Notably, we analyze the full spectrum of participants, rather than filtering for those who are already relatively extreme. Note that new knowledge often facilitates societal shifts and that science “education” has historically driven major social changes—from heliocentrism replacing church doctrine to the acceptance of a tobacco-cancer link in spite of industry obfuscation. (We offer more such germane evidence below.) These data-driven shifts demonstrate how sociologists and social psychologists who hold the stasis view must be incorrect or overly pessimistic. Whether or not they realize it, theorists are haggling over speed, and some