follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« What can we learn from (a) studying public perceptions of the risks of technologies the public hasn't heard of & (b) studying studies that do that? | Main | Submerged ... »

Is "shaming" an effective way to counteract biased information processing? A preliminary investigation

So far, there's been no improvement in the subject's defective information processing.

But data collection involving this subject and others is ongoing.


PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (5)

Same non results here:

March 11, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterGaythia Weis


You're so right! An attempt to shame Republicans that fails abysmally!

They cite the snowball example as if climate activists hadn't spent the last thirty years presenting every heatwave, drought, and local spell of warm weather as if it was proof positive that the climate is-so warming.

They decry the failure of Republican to vote for the statement “human activity significantly contributes to climate change.” as if doing so was in opposition to science, when in fact the statement isn't true. It's not been shown to be statistically significant - because they don't have a validated model of the statistical distribution of the natural background variation to compare it against (as the IPCC has admitted) - and it's not significant in the everyday sense of the word because the total amount of warming so far isn't significant in that sense. On a local scale, where impacts are felt, it's not even detectable yet. If the predictions are right, then it might be in about 50 years time, but it's not now.

That's the scientific position, anyway.

And the article they linked to under the description "This is as close as science gets to proof." is even worse!

They claim that the atmospheric greenhouse effect works like a glass greenhouse - Wrong!

They claim that more heat arrives than escapes,what is called the 'radiative forcing' - Wrong!

They suggest that more energy being radiated down to the surface implies an increase in radiative forcing, and imply this is how the greenhouse effect works - Wrong!

Amazing, isn't it?! More than 30 years after it was first raised an issue, and it's advocates still don't understand how global warming physics works! They still don't understand what the scientific debate is about, or what is being disputed by most sceptics. They still don't understand what would constitute useful evidence.

And yet they're still perfectly capable of trying to shame their political opponents on grounds of 'ignorance of science'! Which as we all know here, is contrary to the science of science communication! They don't even know what they don't know.

It's a brilliant example of the genre, which is sadly all too common. Nevertheless, thanks for bringing it to my attention. It did manage to raise a smile. :-)

March 12, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

@NiV & @Gaythia

Ann Richards(TC ["the cat"]) did vote (multiple times) for Stubbs for mayor of Talkeetna but I'm not sure AR is properly viewed as Republican for that reason. She's pretty inependent.

March 13, 2015 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan


Oh, my sympathies to Mayor Stubbs - he sounds like a sensible political leader with some excellent policies.

For 15 years, Stubbs the cat has held the top office in Talkeetna, Alaska. And his approval ratings have never been higher.

"He doesn't raise our taxes -- we have no sales tax. He doesn't interfere with business. He's honest," said Lauri Stec, manager of Nagley's General Store, which doubles as the mayor's office.

Are those Republican policies? Sounds more like the small-government Tea Party to me. Cats generally tend to be quite anarchist in their political views, I've found. They don't believe in governments, or following the herd, or being told what to do. Although they do have a bit of an authoritarian streak when it comes to meal times...

Thanks again. It did raise another smile to hear that American politics is still (in places) upholding the principles of democracy, liberty and independence... :-)

March 13, 2015 | Unregistered CommenterNiV


Stubbs recovered. Only added to his mystique-- like time Reagan got shot.

March 14, 2015 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>