Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.
www.culturalcognition.net
Cultural Cognition and Perceptions of
Judicial Neutrality
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.
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
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
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
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
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%
37%
Hier Individ
%%5%522
%%52
%%0%52%052
75%
%5522
%
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
%05
25%
Pct. Agree
%
25%
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
%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%
%
%
%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
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
13%Egal Comm
abortion
Egal39%
Indivd
Egal Comm
70%
70%
Egal Comm
60%
69%
Egal80%
Indivd 70%70%
Egal Comm 77% Hier
Comm
77% 56%
56%
70%Egal
70%
43%
Comm
56% 69%
Egal Indivd
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier
Comm
Egal
Egal
Comm
39%Indivd 69% Hier Individ
60%
50%
50%
70%
56%
70%
70%
70%
70%
69%
3%
37%Indivd
Hier Comm
56% Egal
Egal Comm
Hier Comm
Egal Comm
60%Egal Indivd 39%
Hier Individ
43%
Egal
Indivd
Hier
Comm
43%
32%
% 50%
56%
37%
40%
50%
Egal
43%
100%
29%
39%
Hier Individ
Hier50%
Comm
Egal
Indivd
Egal C
100%Comm
Hier Individ
Hier Comm
60%
Egal39%
Indivd
37%
32%
37%
26%
Hier
56%
43%
39%
Hier
Individ 25%
50%
50%
56%Comm
25%
100%Hier Individ
37%
43%
Egal
Indivd
32%
100%
Egal In
Hier Comm
32%
100%
39%
Hier Individ
Hier Comm
100%
40%
30% 25% 29%
0% 37%
25% 32%
50%
50% 37%
39%
Hier Individ
43%
26%
16% Hier25%
Hier Comm
40%
25%
Hier Co
Individ
32%
25%
25%
39%
Hier37%
Individ
75%39%
75%
13%
43%
37%
43%
37%
29%
32%
13%
25%
25%
20%
30%
40%
29%
39% 25%32%
Hier
Individ
39%
Hier Ind
75%
% 26%
25%
75%
75%
75%
3%
16%8%
37% 25%
26% 13%
37%
30%
29%
25%
25%
13%
8% 100% 32% 13%
13%
16%
26%
32% 13%
25%20%
25%
25%
25%
10%
30%
9%
8%
16%
13%
29%
8%
13%
50%
50%
16% 25%
6% 13%
20%
26%
13%
25% 13%
50%
25%
25%
8%
50%
50%
50%
13%
AntiAnti-military 90%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
16%
8%
0%
10%
20%
13% Anti-military
Anti-military
Anti8% 13%
13% abortion
100% 16%
abortion
abortionAnti-military
16%
10%
AntiAnti-military
Anti8%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
8%
13%
n
abortion
13%
13% 80%
13%
25%
100%
25%
25%
0%
25%
10%
abortion
abortion
25%
military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
abortion
abortion
abortion
77%
25%
8%
90%
8%
liable
police
vs. police
ti-military
Anti- Police
Anti-military
Anti- Enjoin
Anti-military
Anti-Damages
Anti-military
0%
oin police
Damages
vs.
police
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
Anti- 70%Anti-military
abortion
abortion
77%
70% vs. police
70% abortion
70% police
70%police
90%
abortion
69%
Enjoin
Damages
ybortion
AntiAnti-military
Police
liable
Enjoin
0%
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-militaryDamages vs. police
abortion
abortion
abortion
80%
0%
0%
70%
0%
70%77%
0%
0% Enjoin
abortion
69%
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
0%
abortion
abortion
abortion
e. police
police
Damages
vs.
police
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
Anti-Egal Anti-military
Egal
Comm
Commrecruitment cent
60%
Police
liableabortion
Enjoin
police
Damages
vs.
police
clinic
recruitment
center abortion
clinic
recruitment
center abortion
80%
clinic
recruitment
center abortion
clinic
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
Police
liable
Enjoin
police
Damages
vs.
police
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
56%
56%
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
n
abortion
abortion
77%
70%77% abortion
70%
%
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
abortion
abortion
70%
69%
Egalvs.
Egal
Comm
Comm
Egal
Egal
Indivd
Indivd
Damages
police
Protestors
blocked
PoliceEIliable
Enjoin
police
Damages
vs.
police
Screamed
in
face
v. HC
EC
v.
HI
EI
v.
HC
EC
v.
HI
Police liable
Liable
50% Police
50%70% EC v. HI
Police liable
Police
Liable
56%
70%
70%
70%
70%
EI EIv.v.Egal
HC
69%
69%Indivd Enjoin
Protestors
blocked
Screamed
in faceHier Comm
EI
v.v.Egal
HC
EC
HI
lice liable
Damages
vs.
HCpolice
EC v.police
HI Police liable Egal
police
Damages
vs.
Hier
Comm
EI
HC
ECv.v.police
HI
Comm
Comm
60%Egal Indivd Enjoin
Protestors blocked
Protestors
blocked
50%
43%
43%
56%
%
40%
100%
100%
Egal
Egal C
Comm
39%
Hier Individ
Hier Comm
Hier Comm
Protestors blocked
60%
Egal
Egal39%
Indivd
Indivd
Screamed in37%
face Hier Individ
100%
100%
100%
100%
43% 56% 37%
50%
50%
56%
100%Hier Individ
100%
Egal
Egal In
Indivd
32%
32%
39%
Hier Individ
Hier
Hier Comm
Comm
100%
100%
30%
29%
50%
50% 37%
0% 37%
43%
26%
40%
Hier Comm
Hier Co
32%
25%
25%
39%
39%
Hier25%
Hier25%
Individ
Individ
75%
75%
75%
75%
75%
43% 20%
43%
37%
37%
29%
75%
40%
26%
39% 25%
39%
Hier
Hier Ind
Individ
75%
75%
32%
%
25%
75%
75%
16%
37% 25%
37%
30%
29%
13%
13%
13%
13%
26%
32%
32%
25%
25%
25% 10%
25%
30%
16%
50%
50%
29%
9%
8%
8%
50%
50%
50%
50%
20%
26%
6% 13%
13%
25%
25%
25% 13%
25%
50%
50%
50%
50%
16%
8%
0%
20%
13%
13%
13%
16%
16%
25%
25%
AntiAnti-military
Anti- 10%
AntiAnti-military
Anti-military
AntiAntiAnti-military
Anti-military
25%
8%
8%
25%
13% 25%
13%
13%
13%
25%
25%
25%
10%
abortion
abortion
abortion
abortion
abortion
25%
25%
8%
Anti- 0%
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military 8%
AntiAnti-military
ti-military
0%
abortion
abortion
0%
Police
liable
Damages
vs. police
0%police
Anti- abortion
Anti-military
Anti- 0%
Anti-military Enjoin
y Enjoin
AntiAntiAnti-military
Anti-militaryDamages vs. police
0%police
0%
0%
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
abortion
recruitment
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
abortionAnticlinicAbortion
recruitment
center abortion
abortion
clinic Anti-military
recruitment
center
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
0%
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
0%
abortionAnticlinic
recruitment
centercenter Anti-abortion
abortion
clinic clinic
recruitment
center cent
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-military
0%
0%
abortion
abortion
abortion
AntiAnti-military
Anti-military
Anti-military
Anti-military
AntiAntiAnti-military
Police
liableabortion
Enjoin
police
Damages
vs. police
. police
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Center
abortion
clinic
clinic
recruitment
recruitment
center
center
abortion
abortion
clinic
clinic
recruitment
recruitment
center
cent
Abortion
Clinic
Clinic
Recruitment
Recruitment
Center
Center
Anti-abortion
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-military
abortion
clinic
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
v.
EC
v. HI
EI
v.
HC
EC
v.
HI
abortion
clinicAbortion
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruitment
center
Enjoin
police
abortion
n
abortion
abortion
abortion
abortion
EIEIv.recruitment
HC HC
EC
v.
HI
Enjoin
police
EI
v.
HC
EC
v.
HI
Enjoin Police
Enjoin Police
PoliceEIliable
Enjoin policeEC v. HI Damages vs. police EI v. HC
Damages vs. police
v. HC
EC v. HI
Pedestrians
justnot
not
want
tolisten
listen
Police
justliable
annoyed
Police
just
annoyed
Police
Police
liable
Police
Police
Liable
Liable
Pedestrians
just
want
to
Protestors
blocked
Protestors
blocked EC
EI EIv.v.HC
EC
v.v.HI
EI EIv.v.HC
v.v.HI
Police
lice liable
liable
Enjoin
Enjoin
police
police
Damages
Damages
vs.
vs.
police
police
HC
EC
HI
HC
EC
HI
100%
43%
25%
25%Hier Comm
tion
itary
%
100%Hier Individ
32%
100%
37%
39%
56% 37%
Hier Comm
8%
Hier Individ
Pct. Agree
Pct. Agree
Pct. Agree
25%
Enjoin
Damages
vs.
police
Hier25%
Individ
Anti- police
Anti-military
43%
37%
39%
0%
75%
25%
75%
37%
0%
bortion
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
13%
13%
32%
ce 25% abortion 25%
clinic
recruitment
center
abortion
clinic
recruit
8%
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Cen
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-mili
13%
abortabortion
ion clinic recruitment center abortion
abortio25%
n clinic recrui25%
tment
50%
50%
Damages
vs.
police
13%
EI
v.
HC
EC
v.
HI
16%
Police
liable
ti- 8%
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
Police
Liable
13%
13%
25%
able
Enjoin
police
Damages
vs.
police
tion
abortion
25%
EI
v.
HC
EC
v.
HI
8%
itary
Protestors blocked
Enjoin
Anti- police
Anti-militaryDamages vs. police
0%
100%
0%
bortion
Anti-military
AntiAnti-military
AntiAnti-military
ce100%
abortion clinic
recruitment
center abortion
clinic recruit
Abortion
Clinic
Recruitment
Cen
Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Anti-abortion
Anti-mili
abortion
clinic
recruitment center abortion
abortion clinic
recruitment
abortion
Damages vs. police EI v. HC
EC v. HI
100%
Protestors blocked
Police liable
Police
Liable
100%
100%
Protestors blocked
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 interference
with 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.
15.
16.
Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased.
Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate.
Moredata. More studies must be done before policymakers rely on the
findings of the Nature Science study.
study_dismiss scale (α = 0.85)
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Risk Perception
Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Climate change
Individualism
Communitarianism
Climate change
Egalitarianism
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
Dismiss
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
0.60
-1.20
0.40
0.20
Credit
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
0.80
0.00
1.20
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
-1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
HI
0.20
EC
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution geoengineering
geoengineering
pollution
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
HI
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
EC
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Control Condition
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
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.
15.
16.
Biased. The scientists who did the study were biased.
Computers. Computer models like those relied on in the study are not a
reliable basis for predicting the impact of CO2 on the climate.
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
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
1.20
0.40
1.00
0.20
Dismiss 1.20
0.80
0.00
0.60
-0.20
1.00
0.40
-0.40
0.80
0.20
-0.60
0.60
0.00
-0.80
0.40
-0.20
-1.00
0.20
-0.40
-1.20
0.00
1.20
-0.60
-0.20
1.00
-0.80
-0.40
0.80
-1.00
-0.60
0.60
-1.20
-0.80
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Study dismissiveness
1.20 1.20
1.00 1.00
0.80 0.80
0.60 0.60
0.40 0.40
0.20 0.20
0.00 0.00
-0.20
-0.20
control
-0.40 -0.40
-0.60 -0.60
-0.80 -0.80
-1.00
-1.00
control
-1.20 -1.20
control
control
1.20
HI
1.00
EC
0.80
0.60
0.40
HI
0.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
0.00
HI
HI
HI
-0.20
pollution
geoengineering
Egal
EC Commun
EC EC
-0.40
1.20
-0.60
1.00
-0.80
0.80
-1.00
pollution
geoengineering
0.60
-1.20
HI
0.40
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
controlpollution
pollution
geoengineering
EC
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
pollution
geoengineering
-1.00
-1.20
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
EC
HI
EC
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Geoengineering Condition
Study dismissiveness
HI
HI
EC
z_Study dismiss 2
1.20
1.00
1.20
0.80
1.00
Dismiss 0.60
1.20
0.80
0.40
1.00
0.60
0.20
0.80
0.40
0.00
0.60
0.20
-0.20
0.40
0.00
-0.40
0.20
-0.20
-0.60
0.00
-0.40
1.20
-0.80
-0.20
-0.60
1.00
-1.00
-0.40
-0.80
0.80
-1.20
-0.60
-1.00
0.60
-0.80
-1.20
0.40
-1.00
0.20
Credit -1.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
EC
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
HI
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
control
pollution
geoengineering
EC
Study dismissiveness
Dismiss 1.20
z_Study dismiss 2
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
-0.80
-1.00
Credit -1.20
Hierarch
Individ
HI
Egal
EC Commun
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Polarization
z_Study dismiss 2
more
2.5
polarization
2.0
1.5
less
polarization 1.0
control
anti-pollution
pollution
geoengineering
Judicial communicative virtues
1. Expressive reassurance
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).
2. Aporia—acknowledging (real) complexity
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)
Perceptions of Protoypical Jurors
Linda
Pro-pltff (driver)
Bernie
Pat
Ron
Pro-dfdt (police)
Judicial communicative virtues
1. Expressive reassurance
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).
2. Aporia—acknowledging (real) complexity
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