View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
Download paper here.
www.culturalcognition.net
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
David A. Hoffman Temple Law School
Donald Braman G.W. Law School
Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Lab
J effrey J . Rachlinski Cornell Law School
“They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative
Harm PrincipleStanford Law Review (in press)
Research Supported by: Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, George Washington University Law School & Temple University Beasley School of Law
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
www.culturalcognition.net
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
David A. Hoffman Temple Law School
Donald Braman G.W. Law School
Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Lab
J effrey J . Rachlinski Cornell Law School
“They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative
Harm PrincipleStanford Law Review (in press)
Research Supported by: Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, George Washington University Law School & Temple University Beasley School of Law
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)}
Experimental Conditions
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any hospital or medical clinic that is licensed to perform abortions. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
Freedom to Serve with Honor Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any facility in which the U.S. military is engaged in recruitment activity. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (pro_protest)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
1. DTHREAT. The protestors threatened individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.
2. DINTIMIDATE. The protestors intimidated individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.
3. DOBSTRUCT. The protestors obstructed individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.
4. PLISTEN. The people who decided not to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center did not feel threatened or intimidated; they just didn’t want to have to listen to what the protestors were saying.
5. PANNOY. It is more likely the police broke up the protest because they found dealing with the entire situation annoying or inconvenient than because they believed the protestors were violating the law.
6. DVIOLENCE. There was a risk that the protestors might resort to violence if anyone tried to enter.
7. DSCREAM. One or more the protestor screamed in face of people who wanted to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.
1. LIABILITY. I would vote to find the police did not have the evidence necessary to stop the protest under the Freedom to Serve with Honor Law/The Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law.
2. DAMAGES. I would vote to order the police to pay damages to the protestors.
ORDER. I would vote to order the police not to interfere with protests under conditions like the ones shown in the video.
Select fact perception items
Case-outcome items
“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Hypotheses
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Hypotheses
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Hypotheses
“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”
Study Design
200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video
Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law
Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews
EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization
Sample
Stimulus
Experimental Manipulation
Measures
Hypotheses
} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
recruitment ctr45%
recruitment ctr46%
abortion clinic49%
abortion clinic45%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Police liable Grant Injunction vs. police
Pct
. Agr
eeSample-wide Responses
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”
Hypotheses
Pct.
Agre
e
Protestors blocked Screamed in face
Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Screamed in face
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Protestors blocked
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Police just annoyed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Pedesterians not want to listen
.
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Recruitment -0.01 (0.14) -0.01 (0.14) -0.01 (0.13) Hierarchy -0.07 (0.07) 0.32 (0.09) Individualism -0.06 (0.07) -0.26 (0.09) Hierarchy x Recruitment -0.82 (0.13) Individualism x Recruitment 0.30 (0.13) Constant 0.00 (0.10) 0.02 (0.10) 0.04 (0.09) R2 0.00 0.01 0.19 Δ F 0.83 21.72
Anti-demonstrator
Pro-demonstrator
pro_
prot
esto
r (z-
scor
e)
N = 196. Dependent variable is pro_protestor (z-score). Bold denotes significant at p < 0.05
Discussion:
1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative
2. Liberal democratic legitimacy
3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges)
} CognitiveIlliberalism
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
20:1
1:20
PriorFactualBelief
Scream inFace
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
20:1
1:2010
200:1
1:2
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
20:1
1:20
10 200:1
1:200 0.1
PriorFactualBelief
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
20:1
1:20
10 200:1
1:200 0.1
CulturalWorldview
Discussion:
1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative
2. Liberal democratic legitimacy
3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges)
} CognitiveIlliberalism
Dan M. KahanYale Law School
Donald BramanGeorge Washington University
John GastilUniversity of Washington
Geoffrey CohenStanford University
Paul Slovic University of Oregon
Ellen PetersOhio State University
Hank Jenkins-SmithUniversity of Oklahoma
David HoffmanTemple Law School
Gregory MandelTemple Law School
Maggie WittlinCultural Cognition Project Lab
Lisa Larrimore-OueletteCultural Cognition Project Lab
Danieli EvansCultural Cognition Project Lab
June CarboneUniv. Missouri-Kansas City
Michael JonesSafra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ.
Naomi CahnGeorge Washington University
Jeffrey RachlinksiCornell Law School
John ByrnesCultural Cognition Project Lab
John MonahanUniversity of Virginia