watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. download paper here.here

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

Download paper here.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1755706

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)

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

Study Design





conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions

Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

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

Study Design





EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization

Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


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






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses

} composite scale (pro_protest)

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


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






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Communitarianism

hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center

EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


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

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


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 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

Hypotheses


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


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


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 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

Hypotheses


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


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


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 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

Hypotheses

“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


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


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

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


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


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 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

“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


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 Anti-

abortion

Anti-military 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%


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

.

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

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence



20:1

1:20

PriorFactualBelief

Scream inFace



20:1

1:2010

200:1

1:2

PriorFactualBelief



20:1

1:20

10 200:1

1:200 0.1

PriorFactualBelief



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

www. culturalcognition.net

“I am you!”

watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. download paper here.here

Documents

abortion clinic abortion

condition conflict

protest key evidence

press slide

study design

composite scale z

video sitecause

cultural groups