1 / 0

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

Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. Download paper here . www.culturalcognition.net. “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative Harm Principle Stanford Law Review (in press).

marie
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Watch in slide show mode to observe (modest) animation. Download paper here.
  2. www.culturalcognition.net “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative Harm Principle Stanford Law Review (in press)
  3. “The record confirms that any distressoccasioned by Westboro’spicketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interferencewith the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
  4. www.culturalcognition.net “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative Harm Principle Stanford Law Review (in press)
  5. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  6. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  7. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  8. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  9. Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
  10. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  11. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 betweencultural groups within each condition conflict withineach group between conditions } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  12. Experimental Conditions Abortion Clinic Condition Recruitment Center Condition
  13. Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
  14. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  15. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  16. Experimental Conditions Abortion Clinic Condition Recruitment Center Condition
  17. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (pro_protest)
  18. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  19. Select fact perception items Case-outcome items
  20. “The record confirms that any distressoccasioned by Westboro’spicketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interferencewith the funeral itself.” Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011)
  21. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  22. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  23. Cultural Cognition Worldviews Hierarchy hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians Individualism Communitarianism egalitarian individualists egalitarian communitarians Egalitarianism
  24. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  25. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  26. Hypotheses Pro- demonstrator Anti- demonstrator
  27. Hypotheses Pro- demonstrator Anti- demonstrator
  28. Hypotheses Pro- demonstrator Anti- demonstrator “Semi-polarization” “Complete Polarization”
  29. Study Design Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses 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 EI/HC: Complete polarization EC/HI: Semi-polarization } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)
  30. Sample-wide Responses Pct. Agree
  31. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  32. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  33. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  34. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  35. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  36. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  37. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
  38. Hypotheses Pro- demonstrator Anti- demonstrator “Semi-polarization” “Complete Polarization”
  39. Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed
  40. N = 196. Dependent variable is pro_protestor(z-score). Bolddenotes significant at p < 0.05 Pro-demonstrator pro_protestor(z-score) Anti-demonstrator
  41. Discussion: 1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative 2. Liberal democratic legitimacy 3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges) } Cognitive Illiberalism
  42. New Evidence Revised Factual Belief Prior Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
  43. New Evidence Revised Factual Belief Prior Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 1:20
  44. Scream in Face Revised Factual Belief Prior Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 200:1 10 1:20 1:2
  45. Revised Factual Belief Prior Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 10 200:1 1:20 0.1 1:200
  46. Cultural Worldview Revised Factual Belief Prior Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 10 200:1 1:20 0.1 1:200
  47. Discussion: 1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative 2. Liberal democratic legitimacy 3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges) } Cognitive Illiberalism
  48. www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”
More Related