“Ideology” or “Situation Sense”? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Identity-protective cognition & political polarization: policy-consequential facts
Identity-protective cognition & political polarization: legally consequential facts
Identity-protective cognition & political polarization: judicial decisionmaking?
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 Construction workers subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 Construction workers Immigrant aid group subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 Construction workers Immigrant aid group Prolife counseling subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 Construction workers Immigrant aid group Prolife counseling Prochoice counseling subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear hierarchical communitarians egalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk cats/stupid birds hierarchical individualists egalitarian communitarians
Cultural Cognition Worldviews subject means
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Marijuana legalization Abortion procedure Anti-terrorism climate change nuclear power air & water pollution Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk climate change nuclear power air & water pollution Marijuana legalization Abortion procedure Anti-terrorism Individualism Communitarianism
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
They saw a statutory ambiguity.... Littering: placing water dispensers in desert = “depositing... junk... debris...”? Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law? Conditions 1 2 subjects: public, students, lawyers, judges (N = 1554) Construction workers Immigrant aid group Prolife counseling Prochoice counseling
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists Predicted results for public Predispositions No violation Violation
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Predispositions No violation Violation Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic hierarchical individualists egalitarian communitarians Predicted results for public
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Immigrant aid group Predispositions No violation Violation Construction workers Immigrant aid group Construction workers Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic Predicted results for public
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Immigrant aid group Predispositions No violation Violation Construction workers Immigrant aid group Construction workers Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic Pro-choice clinic Pro-life clinic Predicted results for public
Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Disclosure Littering
Disclosure Littering Hierarch individ Egal commun
Significant results!!
Disclosure Littering
Disclosure Littering HI construction 40%
Disclosure Littering HI construction 40% ± 7%
Disclosure Littering HI construction HI imm rts 75% ± 6%40% ± 7%
Disclosure Littering 34% ± 9% HI construction HI imm rts
Disclosure Littering 27% ± 14% HI construction HI imm rts EC imm rts
Disclosure Littering 22% ± 12% HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts EI prolife 63% ± 9%
Disclosure Littering 17% ± 13% HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HC prolife EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering 15% ± 10% HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HC prolife HC prochoice EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HC prolife HC prochoice EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HC prolife HC prochoice EI prolife EI prochoice
Disclosure Littering HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HI construction EC construction HI imm rts EC imm rts HC prolife HC prochoice EI prolife EI prochoice HC prolife HC prochoice EI prolife EI prochoice
“IPCI”: judges vs. public Public 22%, ± 6% Identity protective cognition impact
“IPCI”: judges vs. public Judge -5%, ± 12% 27%, ± 14% Public 22%, ± 6% Identity protective cognition impact
Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis
Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?
Disclosure Littering Hierarch individ Egal commun
Judge Public Avg. IPCIs
Judge Public Lawyer Student Avg. IPCIs
observed student IPCI Identity protective cognition impact H1: IPCI = 0 “Weight of the evidence” observed data 4.5x less consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10% H3: IPCI = 0.10 Students
observed data 2x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10% observed lawyer IPCI Identity protective cognition impact H1: IPCI = 0 “Weight of the evidence” H3: IPCI = 0.10 Lawyers
Identity protective cognition impact H1: IPCI = 0 observed judge IPCI H3: IPCI = 0.10 “Weight of the evidence” observed data 20x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10% Judges
What about judges? 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?
Identity-protective cognition & dual process reasoning: “Motivated system 2 reasoning”
Pattern recognition & professional judgment
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear Cultural Cognition Worldviews Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk cats/stupid birds
Pattern recognition & professional judgment
Pattern recognition & “situation sense”
McCullen v. Coakley, No , (U.S. S. Ct. June 26, 2014)
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question
The validity question: Experimental studies without judges
The validity question: Observational studies with biased outcome measures & no predictive power
Human vs. Computer: Supreme Court Showdown! The result: Experts: 59% Lexy: 75%!!!!!!!!!! Nonexpert: 72% (49 of 68) P(Z > √(.59*.41)/68 )= 0.007** P(Z > √(.72*.28)/68 ) = 0.58!
The validity question: Experimental studies of judges w/o “ideology”
The validity question: Do experiments “model” judicial decisionmaking
Societal risk perceptions CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean
The validity question: Do experiments “model” judicial decisionmaking
Wrong way: pissing contest “whose study is right? whose method is correct?” Right way: rational empirical inquiry “what additional studies can we do that will give us more reason than we’d otherwise have to view one hypothesis as closer to true than another and generate convergent validity?” The validity question: How to answer it
New data: shame & critical reasoning!