Upload
santos-mattox
View
215
Download
1
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Cognitive Illiberalism
Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School
& many many others!
www.culturalcognition.net
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?”
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Science literacy/numeracy
Greater
Lesser
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re) Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
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).
“Skin cream experiment”
“Skin cream experiment”
Rash Decreases
Rash Increases
Experimental condition
Numeracy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Numeracy scoreEntire Sample
Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples
Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0
01
corr
ect i
nter
pre
tatio
n of
dat
a (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score
01
corr
ect i
nter
pre
tatio
n of
dat
a (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.
numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data.
Numeracy
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Numeracy scoreEntire Sample
Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples
Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0
“Gun ban experiment”
Four conditions
01
corr
ect
inte
rpre
tatio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreasesrash increases
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
Correct interpretation of data
01
corr
ect i
nter
pre
tatio
n of
dat
a (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreasescrime increases
0.0
5.1
.15
.2D
en
sity
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
liberal Democrat
0.0
5.1
.15
.2D
en
sity
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
conservative Republican
Liberal Democrat Conservative Republican
Zconservrepub0
0.0
5.1
.15
.2D
ensi
ty
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
Sample overall
0“Conserv_Repub”
Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_co
rrect interp
retatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpr
etatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
skin cream
01
correct interpretation of da
ta (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
Numeracy score01
n_co
rrect interp
retatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
corre
ct int
erpr
etatio
n of d
ata (=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_correct interpretation of data (=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
01
n_co
rrect in
terp
reta
tio
n o
f d
ata
(=
1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy
gun ban
Numeracy score
01
correct interpretation of data (
=1)
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy
scatterplot: skin treatment
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Correct interpretation of data
Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
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.
Best fitting regression model for experiment results
rash_decrease 0.40 (1.57)rash increase 0.06 (0.22)crime increase 1.07 (4.02)z_numeracy -0.01 (-0.05)z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease 0.55 (2.29)z_numeracy_x_rash_increase 0.23 (1.05)z_numeracy_x_crime_increase 0.46 (2.01)z_numeracy2 0.31 (2.46)z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease 0.02 (0.14)z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase -0.07 (-0.39)z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase -0.31 (-1.75)Conserv_Repub -0.64 (-3.95)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.56 (2.64)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase 1.28 (6.02)Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase 0.63 (2.82)z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub -0.33 (-1.89)z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.33 (1.40)z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase 0.54 (2.17)z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase 0.26 (1.08)_constant -0.96 (-4.70)
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0142
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0092
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0139
0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0081
High numeracyLow numeracy
high numeracy = 8 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct
Regression model predicted probabilities
skin treatment
Gun ban
probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data
rash decreases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash increasesrash decreases
rash increases
rash decreases
rash increases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
crime decreases
crime increases
Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
crime decreases
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for low numeracypartisans
25% (± 9%)
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for high numeracypartisans
46% (± 17%)
Perceived climate change risk
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Science literacy/numeracy
Greater
Lesser
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re) Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual ResponseGreater
Lesser
Science literacy/numeracy
Low High
perc
eive
d ri
sk (z
-sco
re)
Egalitarian Communitarian
Hierarchical Individualist
Actual Response
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).
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
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Experimental Conditions
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any hospital or medical clinic that is licensed to perform abortions. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
Freedom to Serve with Honor Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any facility in which the U.S. military is engaged in recruitment activity. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
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.
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.
Select fact perception items
Case-outcome items
“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
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any hospital or medical clinic that is licensed to perform abortions. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
Freedom to Serve with Honor Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any facility in which the U.S. military is engaged in recruitment activity. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.
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.
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.
Select fact perception items
Case-outcome items
“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)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Individualism Communitarianism
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Abortion procedure
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Controlhierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
Pct.
Agre
e
Protestors blocked Screamed in face
Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military Anti-
abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
50%
69%
43%
56%
25% 25%29%
77%
13%
70%
8%
37%
26%
16%
70%
32%
39%
13%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
Egal Comm
Egal Indivd
Hier Comm
Hier Individ
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Screamed in face
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Protestors blocked
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Police just annoyed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Pedesterians not want to listen
“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)
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for low numeracypartisans
25% (± 9%)
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for high numeracypartisans
46% (± 17%)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Abortion procedure
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian communitarians
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Rash decrease
Rash increase
Crime decrease
Crime increase
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
Low numeracy
High numeracy
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Liberal Democratmore likely
Conservative Republicanmore likely
-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
rash decrease
rash increase
crime decrease
crime increse
Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data
Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data
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.
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for low numeracypartisans
25% (± 9%)
Avg. “polarization”on crime data
for high numeracypartisans
46% (± 17%)
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
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!”