Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government by Dan M. Kahan, Ellen Peters, Erica Dawson, Paul Slovic :: SSRN

Why does public conflict over societal risks persist in the face of compelling and widely accessible scientific evidence? We conducted an experiment to probe two alternative answers: the Science Comprehension Thesis (SCT), which identifies defects in the public s knowledge and reasoning capacities as the source of such controversies; and the Identity-protective Cognition Thesis (ICT) which treats cultural conflict as disabling the faculties that members of the public use to make sense of decision-relevant science. In our experiment, we presented subjects with a difficult problem that turned on their ability to draw valid causal inferences from empirical data. As expected, subjects highest in Numeracy a measure of the ability and disposition to make use of quantitative information did substantially better than less numerate ones when the data were presented as results from a study of a new skin-rash treatment. Also as expected, subjects responses became politically polarized and even less accurate when the same data were presented as results from the study of a gun-control ban. But contrary to the prediction of SCT, such polarization did not abate among subjects highest in Numeracy; instead, it increased. This outcome supported ICT, which predicted that more Numerate subjects would use their quantitative-reasoning capacity selectively to conform their interpretation of the data to the result most consistent with their political outlooks. We discuss the theoretical and practical significance of these findings.

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Kahan, Dan M. and Peters, Ellen and Dawson, Erica and Slovic, Paul, Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government (September 3, 2013). Behavioural Public Policy, 1, 54-86, Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 307, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2319992 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2319992

via papers.ssrn.com

Goodness. I suppose I should read this or at least skim it. The abstract is, uh, remarkable. Who are these poor “less numerate ones” who did so poorly when “the data was presented to them”. I hope they were paid well for their services. But, I shall read it, I shall!
(And paid, because they bloody well deserve it, not because they are engaging in anything corrupt. I’m not saying that.)