watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.

Dan M. Kahan

Yale Law School

www.culturalcognition.net

Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School

Cultural Cognition and Perceptions of Judicial Neutrality

Neutral umpire thesis: The Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of neutral principles of law.


Partisan decisionmaker thesis: The Supreme Court decides cases on the basis of partisan political commitments extraneous to law.



Neutrality miscommunication thesis: Public perceptions of judicial neutrality are distorted by social and cognitive dynamics that can and should be mitigated by judicial decisionmaking practices.

Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

randomly assign 1 “It is now beyond reasonable scientific dispute that human activity is causing ‘global warming’ and other dangerous forms of climate change. Over the past century, atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2)—called a “greenhouse gas” because of its contribution to trapping heat—has increased to historically unprecedented levels. Scientific authorities at all major universities agree that the source of this increase is human industrial activity. They agree too that higher C02 levels are responsible for steady rises in air and ocean temperatures over that period, particularly in the last decade. This change is resulting in a host of negative consequences: the melting of polar ice caps and resulting increases in sea levels and risks of catastrophic flooding; intense and long-term droughts in many parts of the world; and a rising incidence of destructive cyclones and hurricanes in others.”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Education: Ph.D., Harvard University

Memberships:

American Meteorological Society

National Academy of Sciences

“Judged by conventional scientific standards, it is premature to conclude that human C02 emissions—so-called ‘greenhouse gasses’—cause global warming. For example, global temperatures have not risen since 1998, despite significant increases in C02 during that period. In addition, rather than shrinking everywhere, glaciers are actually growing in some parts of the world, and the amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is at the highest level since measurements began 30 years ago. . . . Scientists who predict global warming despite these facts are relying entirely on computer models. Those models extrapolate from observed atmospheric conditions existing in the past. The idea that those same models will accurately predict temperature in a world with a very different conditions—including one with substantially increased CO2 in the atmosphere—is based on unproven assumptions, not scientific evidence. . . .”

Robert Linden

Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Education: Ph.D., Harvard University

Memberships:

American Meteorological Society


High Risk(science conclusive)

Low Risk(science inconclusive)

Climate Change

randomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts

Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley

Education: Ph.D., Princeton University

Memberships:

American Association of Physics


“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



Memberships:



Low Risk(safe)

High Risk(not safe)

Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastesrandomly assign 1 “Radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants can be disposed of without danger to the public or the environment through deep geologic isolation. In this method, radioactive wastes are stored deep underground in bedrock, and isolated from the biosphere for many thousands of years. Natural bedrock isolation has safely contained the radioactive products generated by spontaneous nuclear fission reactions in Oklo, Africa, for some 2 billion years. Man-made geologic isolation facilities reinforce this level of protection through the use of sealed containers made of materials known to resist corrosion and decay. This design philosophy, known as ‘defense in depth,’ makes long-term disposal safe, effective, and economically feasible.”

Oliver Roberts



Memberships:



“Using deep geologic isolation to dispose of radioactive wastes from nuclear power plants would put human health and the environment at risk. The concept seems simple: contain the wastes in underground bedrock isolated from humans and the biosphere. The problem in practice is that there is no way to assure that the geologic conditions relied upon to contain the wastes won’t change over time. Nor is there any way to assure the human materials used to transport wastes to the site, or to contain them inside of the isolation facilities, won’t break down, releasing radioactivity into the environment. . . . These are the sorts of lessons one learns from the complex problems that have plagued safety engineering for the space shuttle, but here the costs of failure are simply too high.

Oliver Roberts



Memberships:



“So-called ‘concealed carry’ laws increase violent crime. The claim that allowing people to carry concealed handguns reduces crime is not only contrary to common-sense, but also unsupported by the evidence. . . . Looking at data from 1977 to 2005, the 22 states that prohibited carrying handguns in public went from having the highest rates of rape and property offenses to having the lowest rates of those crimes. . . .To put an economic price tag on the issue, I estimate that the cost of “concealed carry laws” is around $500 million a year in the U.S.”

James Williams

Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University

Education: Ph.D., Yale University

Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists


“Overall, ‘concealed carry’ laws decrease violent crime. The reason is simple: potential criminals are less likely to engage in violent assaults or robberies if they think their victims, or others in a position to give aid to those persons, might be carrying weapons. . . . Based on data from 1977 to 2005, I estimate that states without such laws, as a group, would have avoided 1,570 murders; 4,177 rapes; and 60,000 aggravated assaults per year if they had they made it legal for law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. Economically speaking, the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing concealed handguns is at least $6.214 billion.”

James Williams

Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford University

Education: Ph.D., Yale University

Memberships:

American Society of Criminologists


High Risk(Increase crime)

Low Risk(Decrease Crime)

Concealed Carry Laws

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism Communitarianism

hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Environment: climate, nuclear



Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control


Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk

Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011).

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Climate Change

Nuclear Waste

Gun Control

Low R

iskH

igh Risk

N = 1,500. Derived from ordered-logit regression analysis, controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence

ConcealedCarry

ClimateChange

NuclearPower 31%

54%

22%

58%

61%

72%

Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response

60% 40% 20% 0 20% 40% 60%

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%20

%40

%60

%80

%

Clim

ate

Cha

nge

Nuc

lear

Was

te

Gun

Con

trol

Low Risk

High Risk

Egalitarian CommunitarianMore Likely to Agree

Hierarchical IndividualistMore Likely to Agree

Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ...

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure


compulsory psychiatric treatment

Abortion procedure






Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination

Gays military/gay parenting


Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

source: Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman, Danieli Evans & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, They Saw a Protest : Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 851 (2012)

Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

source: Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman, Danieli Evans & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, They Saw a Protest : Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction, 64 Stan. L. Rev. 851 (2012)

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.

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism


hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure



Abortion procedure






Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination



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


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


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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e

Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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


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


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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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


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


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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

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


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


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


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


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%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Police just annoyed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Pedesterians not want to listen

Pct. A

gre

e

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-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryPolice liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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%


Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryPolice liable Enjoin policeDamages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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%



Abortion Clinic Recruitment Center


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military

Police liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Enjoin police

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Damages vs. police

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police



Police Liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

abortion clinicrecruitment centerabortion clinicrecruitment centerEI v. HC EC v. HI



Pct. A

gre

e

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%


Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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%



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%


Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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%





0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Police liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Enjoin police

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Damages vs. police

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police



Police Liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked




Pc

t. A

gre

e

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%



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%



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-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryPolice liableEnjoin policeDamages 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%




A bortion Clin ic Re cruitme nt Ce nte r

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %

A n ti-ab o r tio n A n ti-m ilitar y A n ti-ab o r tio n A n ti-m ilitar y

P o lic e liab le

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %


En jo in p o lic e

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %


D am age s vs. p o lic e

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police



Police Liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

abortion c linic re cruitme nt ce nte r abortion c linic re cruitme nt ce nte r

EI v. HC EC v. HI

Prote stors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Prote stors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Prote stors blocked




Pct. A

gre

e

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%



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%



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%



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%





0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Police liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Enjoin police

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Damages vs. police

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police



Police Liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked




Pct. A

gre

e

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%



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%



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%



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%





0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Police liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Enjoin police

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Damages vs. police

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police



Police Liable

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked




Pct. A

gre

e

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%



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%



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-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryAnti-abortionAnti-militaryPolice liableEnjoin policeDamages vs. policeEgal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier 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%




A b o r ti o n C lin ic R e c r u itm e n t C e n te r

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %

A n ti - a b o r ti o n A n ti - m il i ta r y A n ti - a b o r ti o n A n ti - m il i ta r y

P o l ic e l ia b le

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %


E n jo in p o l ic e

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %


D a m a g e s v s . p o l ic e

Damages vs. Police

Enjoin Police


Abortion Clinic Recruitment CenterPolice Liable

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %

a b o r ti o n c lin ic r e c r u itm e n t c e n te r a b o r ti o n c lin ic r e c r u itm e n t c e n te r

E I v . H C E C v . H I

P r o te s to r s b lo c k e d

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %




0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0 %





abortion clinicrecruitment centerabortion clinicrecruitment centerEI v. HCEC v. HI


Protestors blocked

Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

Screamed in face

“The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interferencewith the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)

4. Experimental response items

A. Evidence Skepticism Module

13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?

Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]

14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a

reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the

findings of the Nature Science study.

study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism

Climate change


Communitarianism

Climate change


-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20

control pollution geoengineering

HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit

Study dismissiveness

Hierarch IndividEgal Commun

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Control Condition

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Anti-pollution Condition

Geoengineering Condition

4. Experimental response items

A. Evidence Skepticism Module

13. Convincing. We would like to know what you think of the Nature Science study, excerpts of which you just read. In your view, how convincing was the study on a scale of 0-10 with 0 meaning “completely unconvincing” to 10 meaning “completely convincing”?

Please indicate how strongly you disagree or agree with the following statements concerning the study. [Strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately agree, strongly agree]

14. Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased. 15. Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a

reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate. 16. Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the

findings of the Nature Science study.

study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)

Anti-pollution Condition

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

Geoengineering Condition

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit



-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

anti-pollution

-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20


HI

EC

z_St

udy

dism

iss

2

Dismiss

Credit



anti-pollution

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


more polarization

lesspolarization

Polarizationz_

Stud

y di

smis

s 2

anti-pollution

Judicial communicative virtues

1. Expressive reassurance

2. Aporia—acknowledging (real) complexity

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Rehnquist Court at Twilight: The Lures and Perils of Split-the-Difference Jurisprudence, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1969 (2006).

Cass R. Sunstein, Trimming, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1049 (2009).

Dan M. Kahan, The Supreme Court 2010 Term—Foreword: Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law ,126 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2011).

Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making, J. Empirical Legal Studies (forthcoming 2012)

RonBernieLinda Pat

Pro-pltff (driver) Pro-dfdt (police)

Perceptions of Protoypical Jurors

Judicial communicative virtues

1. Expressive reassurance

2. Aporia—acknowledging (real) complexity

J. Harvie Wilkinson III, Rehnquist Court at Twilight: The Lures and Perils of Split-the-Difference Jurisprudence, 58 Stan. L. Rev. 1969 (2006).

Cass R. Sunstein, Trimming, 122 Harv. L. Rev. 1049 (2009).

Dan M. Kahan, The Supreme Court 2010 Term—Foreword: Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law ,126 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (2011).

Dan Simon & Nicholas Scurich, Lay Judgments of Judicial Decision-Making, 8 J. Empirical Legal Studies 709 (2011)

1. The science communication problem

2. The neutrality communication problem

3. Science communication remedies

watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation

Documents

face slide

low risk safe high risk

supreme court

neutral umpire thesis

partisan decisionmaker

donald braman

cognitive illiberalism

speechconduct distinction