www.culturalcognition.net Judicial Neutrality: Easier Done than Communicated Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale.
Download ReportTranscript www.culturalcognition.net Judicial Neutrality: Easier Done than Communicated Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale.
www.culturalcognition.net Judicial Neutrality: Easier Done than Communicated Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0922714, - 0621840 & -0242106 Ruebhausen Fund, Yale Law School 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. Is Supreme Court “conservative” or “liberal”? 70% 70% 60% 60% 50% 50% Republican 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% Democrat 10% 10% 0% 0% conservative -10% -10% Conservative Conservative source: Pew Researcher Center, March 2013 liberal Liberal Liberal 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). Climate Change randomly assign 1 High Risk (science conclusive) Low Risk (science inconclusive) “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.” “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 Robert Linden Position: Professor of Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Education: Ph.D., Harvard University Memberships: American Meteorological Society National Academy of Sciences American Association of Physics National Academy of Sciences Geologic Isolation of Nuclear Wastes High Risk (not safe) “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. randomly assign 1 Low Risk (safe) “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. Manmade 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 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 Concealed Carry Laws High Risk (Increase crime) Low Risk (Decrease Crime) “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, James Williams the annual gain to the U.S. from allowing Position: Professor of Criminology, Stanford concealed handguns is at least $6.214 University billion.” Education: Ph.D., Yale University Memberships: American Society of Criminologists National Academy of Sciences Cultural Cognition Worldviews Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism egalitarian individualists Communitarianism egalitarian communitarians Egalitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism Source: Kahan, D.M., Jenkins-Smith, H. & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011). Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... Egalitarian Communitarian More Likely to Agree Hierarchical Individualist More Likely to Agree Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response -80% 60% 40% -60% -40% 20% 0 -20% 0% 20% 20% 40% 60% 40% 60% 80% 54% Climate Climate Change Change 72% Low Risk High Risk 22% Nuclear Power Nuclear Waste 31% 58% Gun Control n Control 61% Low Risk High Risk ar Waste Concealed Carry 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 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 Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Hierarchy Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control Egalitarianism 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) Experimental Conditions Abortion Clinic Condition Recruitment Center 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 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. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism egalitarian individualists Communitarianism 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 elbealbilaeil ceicloilP oP %52 Damages vs. police yratilim-itnA %%5522 %5522 % %05 %52 %%0%52 0 %0502 % %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 %%0 52 %502 % %52 % 5 2 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 yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA yratilm-itnA noitroba-itnA %0 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% %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 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 Egalitarianism Guns/Gun Control 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 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 interference with the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011) 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) 80% 60% Is Supreme Court “conservative” or “liberal”? Featured scientist is a knowledgeable and credible expert on ... 70% 70% 40% Egalitarian Communitarian More Likely to Agree Pct. Point Difference in Likelihood of Selecting Response 50% 50% 20% 0 -20% 0% 20% 20% 40% 60% 40% 60% 80% 0% 72% Low Risk High Risk -20% 22% Nuclear Waste Nuclear Power Democrat -40% 10% 10% -40% = 30% 30% 20% 20% -60% 54% Climate Climate Change Change Republican 40% 40% 60% 40% 20% -80% 60% 60% Hierarchical Individualist More Likely to Agree 31% 0% 0% conservative Conservative Conservative -60% -10% -10% liberal Liberal Liberal 58% Gun Control Concealed Carry 61% Gun Control Nuclear Waste Low Risk High Risk Climate Change -80% source: Pew Researcher Center, March 2013 N = 1,500. Derived fromKahan, ordered-logit regression analysis, H. controlling for demographic and political affiliation/ideology Source: D.M., Jenkins-Smith, & Braman, D. Cultural Cognition of variables. Culture variables set 1 SD from mean on culture scales. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence Scientific Consensus. J. Risk Res. 14, 147-74 (2011). 1. The science communication problem 2. The neutrality communication problem 3. Science communication remedies 2.3 50% 47% science communication remedies 2.0 Kernel density estimate Argument without Advocate Expected Advocate Unexpected Intramural Advocate Alignment Advocate Alignment Alignment 10 No Argument 40% Kernel density Kernelestimate density estimate No Argument Argument 8 10 10 Expected Advocate/Argument Alignment Expected Argument/Advocate Alignment Balanced Argument No Argument Unexpected Advocate/Argument Alignment Pluralistic Advocate/Argument Alignment Pluralistic Argument Environment Unexpected Argument/Advocate Alignment 6 10 Density 8 8 8 Kernel density estimate 2 4 0 Egalitarian Communitarian .4 .4.5 .6 hhhihi .9 Hperry/merck guns Hperry/merck Hperry/merck big oil big oil .4 .5 .6 66% kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 .7 guns lawyers guns lawyers hhhihi .5.6 10 .4 8 Pct. Agree 3.0 .6 hhhihi .771% 70% Hperry/merck guns 6 4 50% .9 .8 .9 65% kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 big oil lawyers 58% 56% 54% 2 Density 2.3 .8 big oil lawyers 61% kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 61% bandwidth = 0.0099 kernel = epanechnikov, 60% 2.5 .7 .8 hhhihi 0 70% .5 Kernel density estimate .7 .8 .9 2 0 0 6 Density 2 “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” Impact of narratives on high political sophistication hierarch individualists Hierarchical Individualist Individualist 80% (Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000)HierarchEgalitarian Communitarian 3.3 2.8 4 6 Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview 4 3.5 2 Density Density 4 6 Cultural-credibility heuristic Narrative framing 0 47% No Argument 40% Kernel density estimate .9 Argument without .5 Expected Advocate Unexpected Intramural .4 .6 .7 .8 Advocate Advocate Alignment hhhihi Advocate Alignment Alignment 10 2.0 Kernel density Kernelestimate density estimate No Argument Argument 10 10 Expected Advocate/Argument Unexpected Advocate/Argument Pluralistic Advocate/Argument Alignment Alignment Alignment Likelihood campaignUnexpected finance reformPluralistic Expected Balanced of supporting No Argument Hperry/merck Argument/Advocate Alignment guns 8 Argument big oil Argument/Advocate Alignment Argument Environment lawyers 6 10 Density 8 8 8 Kernel density estimate kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 2 Density 0 4 2 more 6 4 Risk Perception by Condition, Worldview “The HPV vaccine is safe for use among young girls...” 3.0 sophistication hierarch individualists Impact of narrativespolarization on high political Hierarchical Individualist Individualist 80% (Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000) HierarchEgalitarian Communitarian 2 8 Pct. Agree 2.8 hhhihi 0 70% 3.0 .6.7 70% hhhihi 2.0 6 4 56% 50% 2 2.3 10 .8 U.S. .9 Hperry/merck guns US big oil lawyers UK 58% 54% 47% England Pluralistic Advocate/Argument Alignment Hperry/merck big oil Argument/Advocate Argument/Advocate control control Alignment Alignment guns lawyers anti-pollution anti-pollution Argument Environment geoengineering geoengineering 6 Kernel density estimate 4 2 6 Density 6 Unexpected Advocate/Argument Alignment more 0 4 .5 2.5.4 Kernel density estimate .8 .9 2 .6 hhhihi .9 Hperry/merck 2.0 guns Hperry/merck Hperry/merck big oil big oil .4 .5 .6 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 .7 guns lawyers guns lawyers hhhihi .5.6 hhhihi 8 0 10 .4.5 .6.7 hhhihi 6 4 1.5 .7 .8 Hperry/merck guns .8 big oil lawyers .8 .9 U.S. .9 US big oil lawyers UK 1.0 0 0.5 .4 geoengineering .7 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 2 Density kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 Diff. in study_validity 8 4 Expected Advocate/Argument Alignment 3.0 sophistication hierarch individualists Impact of narratives on high political polarization (Monte Carlo simulation, m = 1,000) 0 0 2 2 Density .9 65% 1.0 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 10 Density 8 8 Density 4 6 8 10 Argument Argument .4 anti-pollution .8 big oil lawyers Expected Advocate Unexpected Intramural .6 .7 .8 Advocate AlignmenthhhihiAdvocate Alignment Alignment 10 Argument without .5 Advocate Narrative framing Value affirmation control .7 .8 Kernel density estimate .9 less density estimate 0.0 Expected Kernel density estimate geoengineeringKernel of supporting campaign finance reform Pluralistic Unexpected Balanced No ArgumentLikelihood polarization .4 No Argument anti-pollution 71% 61% 1.5 0.5 No Argument 40% control .7 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 0 Density kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 61% 0.0099 kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 60% 2.5 .6 hhhihi .9 Hperry/merck 2.0 guns Hperry/merck big oil Hperry/merck big oil .4 .5 .6 66% kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0099 .7 guns lawyers guns lawyers hhhihi .5.6 Diff. in study_validity .4.5 10 .4 Egalitarian Communitarian .4 .5 2.5 Kernel density estimate .8 .9 3.3 0 0 4 6 Density 4 6 3.5 2 Density Cultural-credibility heuristic Narrative framing Value affirmation England .6 .7 .8 .9 less.5 0.0 hhhihi Likelihood of supporting campaign finance reform polarization Hperry/merck control anti-pollution controlbig oil anti-pollution guns lawyers geoengineering geoengineering 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. Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Donald Braman George Washington University John Gastil University of Washington Geoffrey Cohen Stanford University Paul Slovic University of Oregon Ellen Peters Ohio State University Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma David Hoffman Temple Law School Gregory Mandel Temple Law School Maggie Wittlin Cultural Cognition Project Lab Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette Cultural Cognition Project Lab Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Project Lab June Carbone Univ. Missouri-Kansas City Michael Jones Safra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ. Naomi Cahn George Washington University Jeffrey Rachlinksi Cornell Law School John Byrnes Cultural Cognition Project Lab John Monahan University of Virginia www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”