Transcript www.culturalcognition.net Cognitive Illiberalism Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School & many many others! Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES--0922714 Oscar M.

www.culturalcognition.net
Cognitive Illiberalism
Dan M. Kahan
Yale Law School
& many many others!
Research Supported by:
National Science Foundation, SES--0922714
Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School
What am I talking about?
Cultural cognition
cognitive illiberalism
1. “Motivated numeracy”
2. “Noncommunicative harm principle”
3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
Motivated Numeracy
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or
prosperity?”
0.75
0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75
(z-score)
risk
perceived
(z-score)
risk(z-score)
perceivedrisk
perceived
Greater
Actual Response
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.50
0.50 0.50
0.50
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00 1.00
1.00
Greater
Greater
reater
Greater
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
perceived risk (z-score)
Greater1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00
-0.25
-0.25
-0.25 -0.25
-0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser
Lesser
Lesser
Lesser
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
High
High
High
High
High
high high
high
high
high
Low
Low
Low
Low
low
low
low Low
low
low
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
low
Science literacy/numeracy
source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G.
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.
Nature Clim. Change, 2, 732-35 (2012).
High
high
“Skin cream experiment”
“Skin cream experiment”

Experimental condition
Rash Decreases
Rash Increases
Numeracy
0
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
Numeracy score
Entire Sample
Politica
Correct interpretation of data
scatterplot: skin treatment
1 1
scatterplot: skin treatment
0 0
rash decreases
rash increases
0
0
1
2
1
3
2
4
5
numeracy
6
3
4 score
5
Numeracy
numeracy
Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.
7
6
8
7
9
8
9
Numeracy
0
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
7
8
9
0
1
2
3
Numeracy score
Entire Sample
numeracy score at & above
which subjects can be
expected to correctly interpret
data.
Politica
“Gun ban experiment”
Four conditions
Correct interpretation of data
scatterplot: skin treatment
1 1
scatterplot: skin treatment
0 0
correct interpretation of data (=1)
rash decreases
rash increases
scatterplot: skin treatment
1
0
2
1
2
3
4
5 ban
6
scatterplot:
gun
numeracy
3
4 score
5
Numeracy
numeracy
7
6
8
9
7
8
correct interpretation of data (=1)
1 1
0
9
00
crime decreases
crime increases
0
1
0
2
1
3
2
4
5
numeracy
6
3
4 score
5
Numeracy
numeracy
7
6
8
9
7
8
9
0
.05
.1
Density
.15
.2
Sample overall
0
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
9
.2
Density
.05
.1
.15
.2
.15
.1
0
0
.05
Density
8
conservative Republican
liberal Democrat
0
Liberal Democrat
7
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
7
8
0
9
1
2
3
4
5
numeracy
6
7
8
9
Conservative Republican
00
Zconservrepub
“Conserv_Repub”
Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point partyself-identification measures.
Correct interpretation of data
111
11
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
Liberal Democrats (<scatterplot:
0 on Conservrepub)
scatterplot: skin
skin treatment
treatment
ban
gun
skin
guncream
ban
rash increases
crime
decreases
rash
increases
crime
decreases
crime
increases
rash
decreases
crime
increases
rash decreases
crime increases
00
crime decreases
0
1
0
22
1
33
2
44
55
n_numeracy
66
77
3
4 score
Numeracy
Numeracy
score5
6
numeracy
88
7
99
8
9
Correct interpretation of data
111
11
Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
Liberal Democrats (<scatterplot:
0 on Conservrepub)
scatterplot: skin
skin treatment
treatment
ban
gun
skin
guncream
ban
rash increases
crime
decreases
rash
increases
crime
decreases
crime
increases
rash
decreases
crime
increases
rash decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
00
scatterplot: skin treatment
11
0
1
0
22
1
33
2
44 ban
55
gun
n_numeracy
66
77
3
4 score
Numeracy
Numeracy
score5
6
88
99
7
8
9
crime decreases
numeracy
crime increases
crime increases
00
crime decreases
0
1
0
2
1
3
2
4
5
n_numeracy
6
3
4 score5
Numeracy
7
6
8
9
7
8
9
Best fitting regression model for experiment results
rash_decrease
rash increase
crime increase
z_numeracy
z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease
z_numeracy_x_rash_increase
z_numeracy_x_crime_increase
z_numeracy2
z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease
z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase
z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase
Conserv_Repub
Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease
Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase
Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase
z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub
z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease
z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase
z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase
_constant
0.40
0.06
1.07
-0.01
0.55
0.23
0.46
0.31
0.02
-0.07
-0.31
-0.64
0.56
1.28
0.63
-0.33
0.33
0.54
0.26
-0.96
(1.57)
(0.22)
(4.02)
(-0.05)
(2.29)
(1.05)
(2.01)
(2.46)
(0.14)
(-0.39)
(-1.75)
(-3.95)
(2.64)
(6.02)
(2.82)
(-1.89)
(1.40)
(2.17)
(1.08)
(-4.70)
N = 1111. Outcome variable is “Correct” (0 = incorrect interpretation of data, 1 = correct interpretation). Predictor
estimates are logit coefficients with z-test statistic indicated parenthetically. Experimental assignment predictors—
rash_decrease, rash_increase, and crime_increase—are dummy variables (0 = unassigned, 1 = assigned—with
assignment to “crime decreases” as the comparison condition. Z_numeracy and Conserv_Repub are centered at 0 for
ease of interpretation. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient is significant at p < 0.05.
Regression model predicted probabilities
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)
Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
high numeracy = 8 correct
low numeracy = 3 correct
Low numeracy
High numeracy
rash increases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash decreases
rash increases
skin
treatment
rash increases
0
0%
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
10%
20%
50%
30%
40%
.6
.7
.8
60%
70%
80%
.9
1
90%
100%
0
0%
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
10%
20%
50%
30%
40%
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0139
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0081
.6
.7
60% 70%
.8
80%
.9
1
90%
100%
crime decreases
crime increases
crime increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime decreases
Gun ban
crime decreasescrime
increases
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
0%
10% 20% 30%= 0.0092
40% 50%
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth
.6
.7
.8
60% 70% 80%
.9
1
90% 100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
0
.1
.2
.3
.4
.5
0%
10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0142
.6
.7
.8
60% 70% 80%
.9
1
90% 100%
probabilility of correct interpretation of data
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Liberal-80%
Democrat
-60%
more likely
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
Conservative Republican
40% 60% 80%
more likely
-80%
-60% in
-40%
-20% of
0%correct
20% interpretation
40% 60% of80%
Pct.
difference
probability
data
-80%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
60%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
Rash
rash decrease-80%
-80%
rash
decrease
rash decrease
decrease
-80%
-80%
-60%
-60%
-40%
-40%
-20%
-20%
0%
0%
20%
20%
40%
40%
60%
60%
80%
80%Low numeracy
-60%
-60%
-40%
-40%
-20%
-20%
0%
0%
20%
20%
40%
40%
60%
60%
80%High numeracy
80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Low numeracy
80%
decrease
rash
increase
rashdecrease
rash
Rash
rash
increase
rashdecrease
rash decrease-80%
increase
rash
increase
rash increase
High numeracy
increase
rashdecrease
crime
increase
rashdecrease
rash
increase
rashdecrease
crime
rash increase
decrease
decrease
crime
Crimecrime
decrease
Low numeracy
High numeracy
decrease
crime
increse
crime
crime
increase
rashdecrease
decrease
crime
increse
crime
crime decrease
increse
crime increse
Crime crime
increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
crime increse
increse
crime
decrease
crime
Predicted difference in probability
of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
crime increse
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican
scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
crime increse
0.95 level of confidence.
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Conservative Republican
more likely
Liberal Democrat
more likely
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
-80%
-40% -20%
-20% 0%
0%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
20%
60% -40%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Low numeracy
rash
decrease
rash decrease
Rash decrease
rash decrease
Rash increase
rash
increase
rash increase
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
High numeracy
80%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
-80%
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%Low numeracy
rash decrease
High numeracy
rash decrease
rash increase
Low numeracy
decrease
decrease
crime
Crimecrime
decrease
rash increase
High numeracy
rash increase
crime decrease
Low numeracy
crime decrease
High numeracy
increse
crime increse
Crime crime
increase
crime decrease
Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican
scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
crime increse
0.95 level of confidence.
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Conservative Republican
more likely
Liberal Democrat
more likely
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
-80%
-40% -20%
-20% 0%
0%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
20%
60% -40%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Low numeracy
rash
decrease
rash decrease
Rash decrease
High numeracy
-80%
Rash increase
rash
increase
rash increase
-60%
-40%
-20%
0%
20%
40%
60%
Low numeracy
80%
High numeracy
rash decrease
Low numeracy
decrease
Crimecrime
decrease
decrease
crime
High numeracy
rash increase
Low numeracy
Crime crime
increase
increse
crime increse
High numeracy
crime decrease
Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
0.95 level of confidence.
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Liberal Democrat
more likely
Conservative Republican
more likely
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
-80%
-40% -20%
-20% 0%
0%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
20%
60% -40%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Low numeracy
rash
decrease
rash decrease
Rash decrease
High numeracy
Rash increase
rash
increase
rash increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
decrease
Crimecrime
decrease
decrease
crime
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Crime crime
increase
increse
crime increse
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
High numeracy
Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
0.95 level of confidence.
Perceived climate change risk
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
Actual
Response
Greater1.00
1.00
Greater
0.75
0.75
0.75 0.75
0.75
Actual Response
1.00
0.75
perceived risk (z-score)
(z-score)
risk
perceived
(z-score)
risk(z-score)
perceivedrisk
perceived
0.50
0.50
0.50 0.50
0.50
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
Egalitarian
Communitarian
0.50
0.25
0.25
0.25 0.25
0.25
0.25
perceived risk (z-score)
perceived risk (z-score)
1.00 1.00
1.00
Greater
Greater
reater
Greater
0.00
0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00

-0.25
-0.25
-0.25 -0.25
-0.25
0.00
-0.25
-0.50
-0.50 -0.50
-0.50
-0.50
-0.50
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
Hierarchical
Individualist
-0.75 -0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
-0.75
Lesser
Lesser
Lesser
Lesser
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
-1.00
Lesser
-1.00
Lesser -1.00
High
High
High
High
High
high high
high
high
high
Low
Low
Low
Low
low
low
low Low
low
low
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Science
literacy/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Low
low
Science literacy/numeracy
source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G.
The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks.
Nature Clim. Change, 2, 732-35 (2012).
High
high
What am I talking about?
Cultural cognition
cognitive illiberalism
1. “Motivated numeracy”
2. “Noncommunicative harm principle”
3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
Experimental Conditions
Abortion Clinic Condition
Recruitment Center Condition
Experimental Conditions
Abortion Clinic Condition
Recruitment Center 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.
Select fact perception items
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.
Case-outcome items
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.
“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)
Experimental Conditions
Abortion Clinic Condition
Recruitment Center 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.
Select fact perception items
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.
Case-outcome items
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.
“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)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Individualism
Communitarianism
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
Guns/Gun Control
Abortion
procedure
hierarchical
communitarians
Gays military/gay parenting
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
Gays military/gay parenting
egalitarian individualists
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%57
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%05
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
32% 13%
37%
%52
Hier Individ
%52
%52
%%0 52
75%
%52
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnA Damages
noitroAntibavs.
-itnpolice
A Anti-military
yratilim-itnAAnti-noitroAnti-military
ba-itnA
yraAntitilim-itnAAnti-military
noitroba-itnA
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
%05
25%
Pct. Agree
%
25%
ecilop .sv segamaD
tilim-itnA
ecilop niojnE
Police liable
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
e cilop .sv segamaD
Enjoin police
noitroba-itnA
e cilop niojnE
elbail eciloP
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%502
%
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
0%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA
Police liable
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%57
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%05
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
32% 13%
37%
%52
Hier Individ
%%52 52
%52
%%0 52
75%
%52
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnA Damages
noitroAntibavs.
-itnpolice
A Anti-military
yratilim-itnAAnti-noitroAnti-military
ba-itnA
yraAntitilim-itnAAnti-military
noitroba-itnA
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
%05
25%
Pct. Agree
%
25%
ecilop .sv segamaD
tilim-itnA
ecilop niojnE
Police liable
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
e cilop .sv segamaD
Enjoin police
noitroba-itnA
e cilop niojnE
elbail eciloP
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%502
%
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
0%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA
Police liable
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
%0
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%
%57
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%05
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
32% 13%
25%
37%
25%
%52
Hier Individ
75%
Pct. Agree
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnA Damages
noitroAntibavs.
-itnpolice
A Anti-military
yratilim-itnAAnti-noitroAnti-military
ba-itnA
yraAntitilim-itnAAnti-military
noitroba-itnA
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
ecilop .sv segamaD
tilim-itnA
ecilop niojnE
Police liable
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
e cilop .sv segamaD
Enjoin police
noitroba-itnA
e cilop niojnE
elbail eciloP
%52
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%%52 52
%52
%52
%05
%502
%
%%52 0
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
0%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilim-itnA noitroba-itnA
Police liable
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
%0
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%
%
%5577
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%0055
100% %
Egal Indivd
39%
%52
%52%52
%57
Hier Comm
25%
32% 13%
25%
37%
Hier Individ
25%
75%
Pct. Agree
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnyA
bavs.
b
tirlaim
itn-iA
ratilDamages
im-nitoniAtroAntin-oitnitpolice
rAobAnti-military
a-itnyAratilimy-raitn
tilA
imAnti-itnAnoitronAnti-military
oa
itr-oitbnaA-itnA yrayAntitil-im
tnAnti-military
A nonoitritorobbaa--ititnnA
A
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
ecilop .svesceilogpam
.svaD
segamaD
tilim-itnA
ecilopen
cilojpnE
niojnE
Police liable
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
e cilop .sv segamaD
Enjoin police
noitroba-itnA
e cilop niojnE
%%5522
%5522
%
%05
%52
%0502
%
elbealbilaeil ceicloilP
oP
%52
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%%0%52 0
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
0%
yratilim-itnyAratilim-nitoniAtroban-oitnitrAoba-itnyAratilimy-raitnilAim-itnAnoitronboaitr-oitbnyarAti-lmit-nAA noyitrorba-iytnAirlaimtyiral-timlit-nit-AiAtnnAoitroba-itnnA onoiytraritlomro-bitnbAa-niotnrobAa-itnA
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Police liable
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
%0
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%57
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%05
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
%52
32% 13%
37%
%52
Hier Individ
75%
%52
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
100%
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnA Damages
noitroAntibavs.
-itnpolice
A Anti-military
yratilim-itnAAnti-noitroAnti-military
ba-itnA
yraAntitilim-itnAAnti-military
noitroba-itnA
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
%05
Pct. Agree
%
25%
ecilop .sv segamaD
tilim-itnA
ecilop niojnE
e cilop niojnE
0%
50%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
% 5 2 %52
%%052
%502
%
% 5 2 %52
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Police liable
25%
%52
elbail eciloP
Police liable
Enjoin police
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
noitroba-itnA
75%
e cilop .sv segamaD
25%
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA %0
Enjoin police
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%57
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
%05
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
%52
32% 13%
37%
%52
Hier Individ
75%
%52
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
100%
abortion
abortion
ice
tilim-itnA Damages
noitroAntibavs.
-itnpolice
A Anti-military
yratilim-itnAAnti-noitroAnti-military
ba-itnA
yraAntitilim-itnAAnti-military
noitroba-itnA
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
%05
Pct. Agree
%
25%
ecilop .sv segamaD
tilim-itnA
e cilop niojnE
50%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
%52
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%%0 52
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Police liable
25%
%502
%
elbail eciloP
Police liable
Enjoin police
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
noitroba-itnA
75%
0%
%52
%52
ecilop niojnE
e cilop .sv segamaD
25%
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
%0
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
70%
80%
70%
%
50%
56%70%
%
56% 43%
60%
29% 50%
43%
26%
32%
40%
70%
Hier Comm
100%
39%
Hier Individ
32%
50% 37%
39%
25% 32%
16%
25%
13% 25%
29% 13%
75%
26%
30%
%
Egal Comm
56%
77%Comm
Egal
70%
69%Indivd 70%Egal Comm
Egal
Egal Indivd
%001
Hier Comm
Egal
Indivd
39%
Hier Individ
56% 37%
Hier Comm
Hier
Individ
25%
37%
43%
25%
8%
Egal Comm
100%
Egal Indivd
%57
Hier Comm
25%
39%
32% 13%
25%
37%
25%
Hier Individ
75%
Pct. Agree
8%
13%
13%
20%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
bortion
abortion
abortion
ti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
abortion
ry Police
Anti-liable
AntipoliceAnti-military
Damages vs. police
50%Enjoin
50%
0% Anti-military
abortion
abortion
ice
Damages
vs. police
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
abortion
abortion
Enjoin police
Damages vs.abortion
police
tilim-itnA
Police liable
noitroba-i25%
tnA
yratilim-itnA
e cilop .sv segamaD
Enjoin police
noitroba-itnA
e cilop niojnE
Damages vs. police
yratilim-itnA
%05
%52
%0
noitroba-25%
itnA
elbail e ciloP
0%
0%
Abortion
Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Police liable
Abortion Clinic
Anti-abortion
Recruitment
Ctr
Anti-military
Enjoin police
Anti-abortion
Ant
Damages
po
Police vs.
liable
69%
70%
50%
56%
70%
70%
56% 43%
56%
77%
Egal Comm
70%
69%
Egal Indivd 70% Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Comm
Egal
Egal Comm
39%Indivd
Hier Individ
56% 37%
39%
Hier Individ
Hier Comm
Egal Indivd
32%
37%
29%50%
43%
50%
100%
100%
26%
32%
39%
Hier Individ 25%
Hier Comm
37% 25%
43%
40%
39%
Hier Individ
25% 32% 25%
16%
37%
75%
13% 25%
75% 13%
32%
25%
30%
29%
8%
13%
3%
26%
25%
25%
16%
8%
20%
13%
13%
50%
50%
16%
8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
10%
abortion
abortion
abortion
8%
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
nmilitary25% Anti25%
Anti-militaryEnjoin
Anti0%abortion
Police liable
police Anti-military
Damages vs. police
abortion
Anti- vs. police
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
oin police abortion Damages
abortion
abortion
abortion
e
Damages vs.
police
0% Enjoin police
0%
liable
Enjoin
police center Damages
vs. police
abortion clinic Police
recruitment
center abortion clinic
recruitment
abortion clinic
recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
60%
Pct. Agree
3%
EI v. HC
100%
Protestors blocked
Protestors blocked
EC v. HI
EI v. HC
100%
75%
75%
50%
50%
25%
25%
0%
0%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
Pedestrians just not want to listen
EI v. HC
EC v. HI
Screamed in face
EC v. HI
Screamed in face
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
Police just annoyed
EI v. HC
EC v. HI
“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)
What am I talking about?
Cultural cognition
cognitive illiberalism
1. “Motivated numeracy”
2. “Noncommunicative harm principle”
3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
“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)
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Liberal Democrat
more likely
Conservative Republican
more likely
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
-80%
-40% -20%
-20% 0%
0%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
20%
60% -40%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Low numeracy
rash
decrease
rash decrease
Rash decrease
High numeracy
Rash increase
rash
increase
rash increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
decrease
Crimecrime
decrease
decrease
crime
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Crime crime
increase
increse
crime increse
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
High numeracy
Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
0.95 level of confidence.
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
Gays military/gay parenting
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
Gays military/gay parenting
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Liberal Democrat
more likely
Conservative Republican
more likely
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
-80%
-40% -20%
-20% 0%
0%
20% 40%
40% 60%
60% 80%
80%
-80% -60%
-60%
20%
60% -40%
80%
40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Low numeracy
rash
decrease
rash decrease
Rash decrease
High numeracy
Rash increase
rash
increase
rash increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for low numeracy
partisans
25% (± 9%)
decrease
Crimecrime
decrease
decrease
crime
High numeracy
Low numeracy
Crime crime
increase
increse
crime increse
Avg. “polarization”
on crime data
for high numeracy
partisans
46% (± 17%)
High numeracy
Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 &
- 1 SD on Conserv_Republican scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect
0.95 level of confidence.
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
Gays military/gay parenting
compulsory psychiatric treatment
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Abortion procedure
Environment: climate, nuclear
Gays military/gay parenting
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Egalitarianism
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
What am I talking about?
Cultural cognition
cognitive illiberalism
 1. “Motivated numeracy”
 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle”
 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
www. culturalcognition.net
“I am you!”