Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. Download paper here .

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation.

Download paper here.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1755706

www.culturalcognition.net

Dan M. Kahan

Yale Law School

David A. Hoffman Temple Law School

Donald Braman G.W. Law School

Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Lab

J effrey J . Rachlinski Cornell Law School

“They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative

Harm PrincipleStanford Law Review (in press)

Research Supported by: Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, George Washington University Law School & Temple University Beasley School of Law

“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)

www.culturalcognition.net

Dan M. Kahan

Yale Law School

David A. Hoffman Temple Law School

Donald Braman G.W. Law School

Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Lab

J effrey J . Rachlinski Cornell Law School

“They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative

Harm PrincipleStanford Law Review (in press)

Research Supported by: Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School, George Washington University Law School & Temple University Beasley School of Law

Study Design

200 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel

vignette: protestors suing police for breaking up protest Key evidence: video

Site/cause: abortion clinic /abortion rts vs. mil recruitment/DADT Law

Fact perceptions Case disposition Subject Worldviews

conflict between cultural groups within each condition conflict within each group between conditions

Sample

Stimulus

Experimental Manipulation

Measures

Hypotheses

} composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

Study Design





EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization

Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses

composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)}

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.

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses

} composite scale (pro_protest)

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


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)

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Communitarianism

hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center

EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

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

Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military



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 -mil itary Anti -abortion

Anti -mi litary Anti-abortion

Anti-mili tary

Police liable Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal CommEgal Ind ivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

10 0%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-abort ion

Anti-military An ti-abortion

Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Damag es vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier CommHier Ind ivid

Hypotheses


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

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



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



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-mili tary



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%

10 0%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military



Hypotheses


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

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



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



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-mili tary



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%

10 0%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military



Hypotheses

“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

Study Design






Sample

Stimulus


Measures

Hypotheses


recruitment ctr45%

recruitment ctr46%

abortion clinic49%

abortion clinic45%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Police liable Grant Injunction vs. police

Pct

. Agr

eeSample-wide Responses

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion


Anti-milita ry Anti-abortion

Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Ind ivdHier CommHier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion

Ant i-military Anti-abortion

Ant i-mi litary Ant i-abortion

Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Dam ages vs. police

Egal CommEgal IndivdHier Comm

Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e

Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y Anti -abortion

Anti -militar y

Police l iab le Enjo in police Damages vs. po lice

Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abo rtion



Anti-military


Egal Comm


50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abort ion



Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abort ion



Anti-military



Hier Indiv id

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



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 -militar y


Egal Comm



EI v. HC EC v. HI

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

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



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



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-mili tary



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%

10 0%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military



“Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

Hypotheses

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-milit ary Anti-abortion

Anti-milit ary



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 %

10 0%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-ab ortio n


Anti-military



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100 %

Ant i-abortion


Anti-military Anti -abortion

Anti-military

Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police

Egal Comm

Egal IndivdHier CommHier Indiv id

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Ant i-abortion

Anti-military Ant i-abortion

Anti -mil itary Anti-abort ion

Anti-military

Police li able Enjoin pol ice Damages vs. police


Hier Indi vid

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Screamed in face

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Police just annoyed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Pedesterians not want to listen

. Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Recruitment -0.01 (0.14) -0.01 (0.14) -0.01 (0.13) Hierarchy -0.07 (0.07) 0.32 (0.09) Individualism -0.06 (0.07) -0.26 (0.09) Hierarchy x Recruitment -0.82 (0.13) Individualism x Recruitment 0.30 (0.13) Constant 0.00 (0.10) 0.02 (0.10) 0.04 (0.09) R2 0.00 0.01 0.19 Δ F 0.83 21.72

Anti-demonstrator

Pro-demonstrator

pro_

prot

esto

r (z-

scor

e)

N = 196. Dependent variable is pro_protestor (z-score). Bold denotes significant at p < 0.05

Discussion:

1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative

2. Liberal democratic legitimacy

3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges)

} CognitiveIlliberalism

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence

RevisedFactualBelief

prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence



20:11:20

PriorFactualBelief

Scream inFace



20:11:20

10200:1

1:2

PriorFactualBelief



20:11:20

10 200:11:200 0.1

PriorFactualBelief



20:11:20

10 200:11:200 0.1

CulturalWorldview

Discussion:

1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative

2. Liberal democratic legitimacy

3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges)

} CognitiveIlliberalism

Dan M. KahanYale Law School

Donald BramanGeorge Washington University

John GastilUniversity of Washington

Geoffrey CohenStanford University

Paul Slovic University of Oregon

Ellen PetersOhio State University

Hank Jenkins-SmithUniversity of Oklahoma

David HoffmanTemple Law School

Gregory MandelTemple Law School

Maggie WittlinCultural Cognition Project Lab

Lisa Larrimore-OueletteCultural Cognition Project Lab

Danieli EvansCultural Cognition Project Lab

June CarboneUniv. Missouri-Kansas City

Michael JonesSafra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ.

Naomi CahnGeorge Washington University

Jeffrey RachlinksiCornell Law School

John ByrnesCultural Cognition Project Lab

John MonahanUniversity of Virginia

www. culturalcognition.net

“I am you!”

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. Download paper here .

Documents

abortion clinic abortion

protest key evidence

video sitecause

study design200 adults

composite scale z

cultural groups

cognitive illiberalism

westboros picketing