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.
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.
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.
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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
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
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
Position: Professor of Nuclear Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Education: Ph.D., Princeton University Memberships:
American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences
“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
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
Individualism Communitarianism
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
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
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.
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)
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
Individualism Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
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
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages 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%
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%
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 -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
Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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-abo rtion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages 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%
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%
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 -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
Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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-abo rtion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages 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%
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%
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 -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
Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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-abo rtion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages 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%
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%
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 -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
Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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-abo rtion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages 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%
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%
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 -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
Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier 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%
An ti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-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-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-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 Anti-abort ion
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%
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
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
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 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
E ga l Co m mE ga l Ind iv dH ie r C o m mH ie r I nd iv id
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
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.
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.
“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)
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.
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
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Communitarianism
Climate change
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
-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
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
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
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
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
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
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
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-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
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
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
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
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
-1.20-1.00-0.80-0.60-0.40-0.200.000.200.400.600.801.001.20
control pollution geoengineering
HI
EC
anti-pollution
-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
anti-pollution
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
control pollution geoengineering
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)
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.
1. The science communication problem
2. The neutrality communication problem
3. Science communication remedies
Top Related