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 National Academy of Sciences

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 National Academy of Sciences

“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



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



“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



“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 National Academy of Sciences

“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 National Academy of Sciences

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 RiskHigh 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

Nucl

ear W

aste

Gun

Con

trol

Low RiskHigh 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-abo rtion

Anti-military Anti-abortion

Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion

Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Ind ivdHier 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-abort ion

Anti-military Anti-abort ion


Anti-military


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%

Ant i-abort ion

Ant i-military Anti-abortion

Ant i-mi litary Ant i-abortion

Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Dam ages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier Comm

Hier Indiv id

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 -mi litary Anti-abortion

Anti -militar y Anti -abortion

Anti -militar y

Police l iab le Enjo in police Damages vs. po lice

Egal Comm


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-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


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-abort ion



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%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

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 -militar y


Egal Comm


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-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


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-abort ion



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%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

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 -militar y


Egal Comm


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%

An ti-abortion



Anti-military

Po lice liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHie r CommHie r 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-abortio n

Anti-milit ary

Police liable Enjoin police Da mages vs. police

Eg al CommEg al 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%

Ant i-abort ion

Anti-military Anti -abortion


Anti -mil itary

Police liable Enjoin poli ce Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier In di vid

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-aborti on

Anti -mi litary Ant i-abortion


Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Indiv id

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.

Agre

e

5 0 %6 9 %

43 % 56 % 25 % 2 5%2 9 %

7 7 %

13 %

70 %

8%3 7%2 6%

1 6%

7 0 %

3 2 % 39 %13 %0 %10 %20 %

30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %

1 00 %

An ti-a bo rt io n A n ti- mi lit ary An ti -a b or tio n A n ti- mi lit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti- m ili ta ryP o lic e lia b le E nj oi n po lic e Da m a ge s vs . po lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r In div id50 %

69 %

43 % 56 % 2 5% 2 5%29 %

77 %

13 %

70 %

8 %

3 7%2 6 %1 6 %

70 %

3 2 % 39 %1 3%0 %10 %20 %

30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %

1 0 0%

An ti -a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ryPo lic e li ab le E n jo in po lic e Da m a ge s vs . po lic e

Eg a l C o mmEg a l In d ivdHie r C om mHie r In di vid 5 0 %69 %

43 %56 %

25 % 25 %2 9 %77 %

13 %

70 %

8% 37 %2 6% 1 6 %

70 %3 2 % 39 % 13 %0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %

60 %70 %80 %90 %1 00 %

An ti -a bo rt io n A n ti- mi lit ar y An ti -a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ryP o lic e lia b le E n jo in po lic e Da m a ge s vs . po lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r In div id 5 0% 6 9% 4 3 % 5 6% 2 5 % 25 %2 9%

7 7%

1 3 %

7 0%

8 %37 %26 %

1 6%

7 0% 3 2% 3 9%1 3 %0 %1 0%2 0%

3 0%4 0%5 0%6 0%7 0%8 0%9 0%10 0 %

A nt i-ab or tio n An ti -m ili ta ry A n ti-ab o rti on A nt i-m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A n ti- mi lit ar yP ol ice l ia ble En jo in p ol ice D a m ag e s v s . p o lic e

E ga l Co m mE ga l Ind iv dH ie r C o m mH ie r I nd iv id

Abortion Clinic Recruitment Center

Ab o rtion Cl inic Re c rui tme n t C e nte r

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

Anti -ab o rtion An ti-m il i tary Anti -a bo rtion An ti-m i li tar y

P o lice liab le

0%

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 00 %

Anti -a bo rtio n An ti-m il i tary An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi li tar y

E njo in po l ice

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0%

An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi l ita ry An ti-ab or tio n An ti-mi l i tary

Da mag e s vs. po l ice

Damages v s. Police

Enj oi n Police

A bor tion Clinic Recr uitment Cent er

Abor tion Clinic Re cr uitmen t C enter

Police Liabl e

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

10 0 %

a bo rtion c lin ic re cru i tm e nt ce n te r ab or tion cl in ic re c ru it men t ce n te r

E I v. HC EC v . HI

P ro te stor s b lo cke d

0%

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

10 0 %

ab o rtio n c l in ic rec ru it men t c en ter a bo rtio n cl in ic re cr ui tm en t c en te r

EI v . HC E C v. HI

Pro tes to rs blo ck ed

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

a b ortio n c l inic re c rui tm en t ce n ter ab o rtion cl in ic re cr ui tm en t cen te r

E I v. HC EC v. HI

P ro te stor s blo ck ed

Pct.

Agre

e

5 0%6 9 %

43 %56 %

25 % 25 %2 9%

7 7 %

13 %

70 %

8% 37 %2 6% 1 6 %

7 0 %

3 2 % 39 % 13 %0%

1 0 %2 0 %3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %

1 00 %

A n ti-ab o rti on A n ti- mi lita r y An ti -a b or tio n A n ti- mi lit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ryP o lic e lia b le E nj oi n p o lic e Da m a ge s vs . po lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r Ind iv id

5 0%6 9 %

43 %56 %

25 % 2 5%2 9%

7 7 %

13 %

70 %

8%

3 7%2 6% 1 6%

7 0 %

3 2 % 3 9 % 13 %0%

1 0 %2 0 %3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %

10 0 %

A n ti-a bo rt ion A nt i-m il ita ry A nt i-a bo rt io n A n ti- mi lita r y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ryP o lic e lia bl e E n joi n po lic e D a m ag e s vs . p o lic e

E g al C om mE g al In d ivdH ie r C om mH ie r In di vid

50 %6 9%

4 3%5 6%

2 5 % 2 5 %29 %

7 7%

1 3%

7 0%

8 %3 7 %

2 6 % 16 %

70 %32 % 3 9%

1 3%0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %1 0 0%

A nt i-a bo r tio n An ti -m ili ta ry A n ti-ab o rti on An ti -m ili ta ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A nt i-m i lita ryPo li ce li ab le En jo in p oli ce D am a g es v s. p oli ce

Eg a l C o m mEg a l I nd iv dHi er C o mmHi er In d ivi d

50 %69 %

4 3%5 6%

2 5 % 2 5 %29 %

77 %

1 3%

7 0%

8 % 3 7 %2 6 % 16 %

70 %32 % 3 9% 1 3 %

0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %1 0 0%

An ti -a bo r tio n A n ti- m ilit ar y A n ti-ab o rti on An ti -m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A n ti- mi lita r yPo li ce li ab le E n jo in p oli ce D am a g es v s. p ol ice


Abortion Clinic Recruitment Center

Ab or tio n C l in ic Re cru i tme n t C en te r

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

An ti-ab or tio n Anti -mi l i tary An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi li ta ry

P ol ice l iab le

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

10 0 %

Anti -ab o rtio n An ti-m il i tary An ti-a bo rtio n An ti -mi l ita ry

E njo in po l ic e

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

10 0 %

An ti -ab o rtio n An ti-m i li tar y An ti-ab or tio n Anti -m il i tary

Dam age s v s. p o lic e

Damag es vs. Pol ice

Enjoin Pol ice

Abor tion Clinic Recr uitment Ce nter

Ab ortio n Clinic Recruitme nt Center

Pol ice L iable

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

1 00 %

ab or tion cl in ic re cr u itm en t c e nte r a b ortio n c l in ic re cru i tme n t ce n te r

EI v. HC E C v. HI

Pr ote sto rs blo c ked

0%

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

a bo rtio n cl in ic re cr ui tme n t c en te r a bo rtion c lin ic re cru i tme nt c en te r

EI v. HC E C v. HI

Pro te sto rs blo ck e d

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

1 0 0%

ab o rtion cl inic re cr ui tm en t c en te r ab or tio n cl in ic rec ru itm e nt ce n te r

EI v. HC EC v . HI

Pr o te sto rs b lo c kedPct.

Agre

e

5 0%6 9 %

43 % 5 6 % 25 % 25 %2 9%7 7 %

13 %

7 0 %

8% 37 %2 6% 1 6%

7 0 %3 2 % 3 9 % 1 3 %

0%1 0 %2 0 %3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %1 00 %

A n ti-ab o rti on A nt i-m il ita ry An ti -a bo rt io n A nt i-m i lita ry An ti -a bo r tio n A n ti- m ilit ar yP o lic e lia bl e E nj oin p o lic e D a m ag e s vs . p o lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r Ind iv id5 0 %

6 9 %4 3 % 5 6 % 25 % 25 %2 9 %

7 7 %

1 3 %

7 0 %

8%

37 %2 6% 1 6 %

7 0 %3 2 % 3 9 % 13 %

0%1 0 %2 0 %3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %1 00 %

A n ti-ab o rti on A nt i-m il ita ry An ti -a bo rt io n A n ti- mi lita r y A nti -a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar yP o lic e lia bl e E nj oi n p o lic e D a m ag e s vs . p o lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r Ind iv id

Abo rtio n Cl inic R ec ru itm en t C e nte r

Abor tion Cl ini c Recr ui tm ent Cent er

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0%

An ti-a b ortio n Anti -mi l ita ry Anti -ab o rtion An ti-m i li tar yP ol ice l iab le

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

An ti-ab or tio n Anti -mi l i tary An ti-a bo rtion An ti-mi l ita ry

En join po l ic e

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

Anti -ab o rtion An ti-m i li tar y An ti-a b ortio n Anti -mi l ita ryDam ag es v s. p o l ic e

D amage s vs. Police

Enjoin PoliceAb ortio n C lin ic R e cru i tme nt Ce n ter

Abo rtio n Cl in ic R e cru i tme nt Ce n ter

Po lice Liab le

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

abor tion cl ini c re cr ui tm ent cent er ab ortio n cli nic recr ui tm ent cent er

EI v. HC EC v. H I

Pr ot estor s bl ocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

abor tion cl ini c recr ui tm ent cent er abor tion clin ic r ecr uit me nt center

EI v. HC EC v. HI

Pr ot est or s bl ocke d

0%

25 %

50 %

75 %

100%

abor tion cli nic r ecr uit me nt center abor tion cl ini c re cr ui tm ent cent er

EI v. H C EC v. HI

Pr otest or s blocked

Pct.

Agre

e

5 0 % 6 9 % 4 3 % 56 %25 % 25 %2 9 %

7 7 %

1 3 %

70 %

8%37 %2 6%

1 6%

7 0 %

3 2 %3 9 %

13 %0%1 0 %2 0 %3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %1 00 %

A n ti-a bo rt ion A nt i-m i lita ry An ti-a bo rt io n A nt i-m i lita ry A nt i-a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar yP o lic e lia bl e E nj oi n p o lic e D a m a ge s vs . po lic e

E g al C om mE g al In di vdH ie r Co m mH ie r Ind iv id5 0 % 69 % 43 % 56 %

2 5% 2 5%2 9 %

77 %

13 %

70 %

8 %3 7%2 6 %

1 6 %

7 0 %

3 2 % 39 %1 3%0 %10 %20 %

30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %1 0 0%

An ti -a bo r tio n

A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n

A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n

An ti -m ili ta ryPo lic e lia b le E n joi n po lic e Da m a ge s vs . po lic e

E g al C om mE g al In d ivdH ie r C om mH ie r In di vid

5 0 % 69 % 43 % 56 % 25 % 25 %2 9 % 77 %

13 %

70 %

8%37 %2 6%

1 6%

7 0 % 3 2 % 3 9 %13 %0%1 0 %2 0 %

3 0 %4 0 %5 0 %6 0 %7 0 %8 0 %9 0 %1 00 %

A n ti-a bo rt ion A nt i-m i lita ry A nt i-a b or tio n A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-a b or tio n An ti- m ilit ar yP o lic e lia b le E n joi n po lic e D a m ag e s vs . p o lic e

E g al C om mE g al In div dH ie r Co m mH ie r Ind iv id 5 0% 6 9%4 3 %

5 6%

2 5 % 25 %2 9%

7 7%

1 3 %

7 0%

8 %37 %26 %

1 6%

7 0%3 2% 3 9 %

1 3 %0 %1 0%2 0%3 0%4 0%5 0%6 0%7 0%8 0%9 0%

10 0 %

A nt i-ab o rtio n An ti -m ili ta ry A n ti-ab o rti on A nt i-m il ita ry An ti-ab o rt ion A n ti- mi lit ar yP ol ice l ia ble En jo in p ol ice D a m ag e s v s . p o lic e


Abortion Cli ni c Rec rui tment Center

Abo rtio n Cl in ic R ec ru itm en t Ce n ter

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

Anti -ab o rtion An ti-mi l i tary Anti -a bo rtion An ti-m i li tar y

P o lice liab le

0%

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 00 %

Anti -ab o rtion An ti-m il i tary An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi li ta ry

E njo in po l ice

0 %

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

1 0 0%

An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi l ita ry An ti-ab or tio n Anti -m il i tary

Da mag e s vs. po l ice

Damages v s. Police

Enj oi n PoliceA bor tion Clinic Recr uitment Cent er

Abor tion Clinic Re cr uitment Ce nterPolice Liabl e

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

a bo rtion c lin ic re cr u it men t ce nte r ab or tion cl inic re c rui tme n t cen te r

E I v. HC E C v . HIP rote s to rs blo c ke d

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

a bo rtio n cl in ic re cr u itm en t cen te r ab o rtion cl inic re cru i tme nt ce n te r

E I v . HC EC v . HI

P ro testo r s b loc ke d

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

ab o rtio n cl in ic re c rui tm en t ce n ter abo r tio n cl in ic rec ru it me nt c en te r

EI v. H C EC v . HI

P ro tes tors b loc ke d

Pct.

Agre

e

50 % 6 9% 4 3% 5 6%2 5% 2 5 %29 %

7 7%

1 3%

7 0%

8 %3 7 %26 %

16 %

7 0%

32 %3 9%

1 3%0 %1 0%2 0%3 0%4 0%5 0%6 0%7 0%8 0%9 0%10 0%

A nt i-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A nt i-m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A nt i-m il ita ryP oli ce li ab le En jo in p ol ice D am a g es v s. p ol ice

Eg a l C o m mEg a l I nd iv dHi er C om mHi er In d ivi d5 0% 6 9% 4 3% 5 6 %

2 5 % 2 5 %2 9%

7 7%

1 3%

7 0 %

8 %3 7 %26 %

1 6%

7 0%

3 2% 3 9%1 3 %0%1 0%2 0%

3 0%4 0%5 0%6 0%7 0%8 0%9 0%10 0 %

A n ti-ab o rti on

A nt i-m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion

A nt i-m il ita ry An ti-a bo rt io n

A n ti- mi lit ar yP ol ice l ia bl e En jo in p o lic e D a m ag e s v s . p o lic e

E ga l C o m mE ga l I nd iv dH ier C o m mH ier In d iv id

5 0% 6 9% 4 3% 5 6% 2 5% 2 5 %2 9% 7 7%

1 3%

7 0%

8 %3 7 %26 %

1 6%

7 0% 32 % 3 9%1 3 %0%1 0%2 0%

3 0%4 0%5 0%6 0%7 0%8 0%9 0%10 0 %

A n ti-a b or tio n A nt i-m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A nt i-m il ita ry A n ti-ab o rt ion A nt i-m il ita ryP ol ice l ia bl e En jo in p ol ic e D a ma g es v s. p ol ice

E ga l C o m mE ga l I nd iv dH ier C o m mH ier In d iv id 50 % 69 %4 3%

56 %

2 5% 2 5 %29 %

77 %

1 3%

70 %

8 %3 7 %2 6 %

16 %

70 %32 % 3 9%

1 3%0 %10 %20 %30 %40 %50 %60 %70 %80 %90 %

1 0 0%

An t i-a bo rt io n A n ti- m ilit ar y A nt i-ab o rti on An ti -m ilit a ry A nt i-ab o rti on A nt i-m il ita ryPo lic e lia b le E n jo in p oli ce D am a g es v s. p oli ce

Eg a l C o m mEg a l I nd iv dHi er C om mHi er In d ivi d

Abortion Cl ini c Rec rui tment Center

Abo rtio n Cl in ic R ec ru itm en t Ce n ter

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

1 0 0%

An ti-a bo rtio n An ti-mi li ta ry An ti-ab or tio n Anti -mi l ita ry

Po l ic e l ia ble

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

An ti-ab or tio n An ti -mi l ita ry An ti -ab o rtio n Anti -mi l i tary

En jo in p o lice

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

An ti-ab or tio n Anti -mi l ita ry Anti -ab o rtion An ti-m i li tar y

Da ma ge s vs . p ol ice

Damages v s. Police

Enj oi n PoliceA borti on C lin ic Recr uitment Cent er

Abor tion Clinic Recr uitment Cen terPolice Liabl e

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 00 %

ab o rtio n cl inic re c rui tm en t c e n te r a bo rtio n c l in ic re c ru it me nt ce n ter

EI v. H C E C v . HIP rote s tors blo c ke d

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

10 0 %

a bo rtion cl in ic re c ru itm e nt ce nte r a b ortio n c l in ic re cru i tme n t c en te r

EI v . HC E C v . HI

P rote sto rs b lo ck e d

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 0 0 %

ab o rtio n cl in ic re cr ui tm en t c en te r a bo rtio n c lin ic re cru i tme nt c en te r

EI v . HC EC v . HI

Pr o testo rs b loc ke dPct.

Agre

e

Abor tion Cl ini c Recr ui tm ent Cent er

Ab or tio n Cl in ic R ec ru itm e nt C en te r

0%

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

10 0%

An ti -a bo rti on A n ti-mi lit ar y A n ti-a b or tio n An ti -m ili ta ry

Po li ce lia b le

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

1 00 %

A nti -a b or tio n An ti -m ili tar y An ti -ab o rti on A nti -m i lita ry

En jo in p oli ce

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 0 0%

An ti -ab o rti on A nti -m i lita ry A nti -a bo rti o n A n ti-m ilit ar y

Da m ag es v s. po lic e

Dam age s vs. Pol ice

Enj oin Poli ceAbor tion Clin ic Recr uit ment Cent er

Abor tion Cl ini c Re cr ui tm ent Cent erPol ice Li ab le

0%

2 5 %

5 0 %

7 5 %

10 0 %

ab or tio n cl ini c r ec ru it me n t c en te rab or tio n cl in ic re cr uit m en t c e nt er

EI v. H C EC v . H I

Pr ot es to rs bl oc ke d

0 %

2 5%

5 0%

7 5%

1 0 0%

a bo rti o n c li nic r ec ru itm e n t c en te ra bo rti o n cli nic r ec ru itm e nt c en te r

EI v. HC EC v. H I

P ro te st or s b lo ck e d

0 %

25 %

50 %

75 %

1 00 %

ab o rti on c lin ic re cr ui tm e nt ce n ter ab o rti on c lin ic re cr ui tm e nt ce nt er

E I v . H C E C v. HI

P ro te st or s b lo ck ed

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

smiss

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

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