“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!