1. “Ideology” or “Situation Sense”?
“Ideology” or “Situation Sense”?
An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

2. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?

3. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

4. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

5. Identity-protective cognition & political polarization:
policy-consequential facts

6. Identity-protective cognition & political polarization:
legally consequential facts

7. Identity-protective cognition & political polarization:
judicial decisionmaking?

8. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

9. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

10. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)

11. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)

12. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)

13. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)

14. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)

15. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?

16. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Construction workers
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?

17. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Construction workers
Immigrant aid group
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?

18. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Construction workers
Immigrant aid group
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?
Prolife counseling

19. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: judges, public, lawyers, law students (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Construction workers
Immigrant aid group
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?
Prolife counseling
Prochoice counseling

20. Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Hierarchy
Individualism
Communitarianism
Egalitarianism

21. Gays military/gay parenting
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
Gays military/gay parenting
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
cats/stupid birds
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
HPV Vaccination
cats/stupid birds
Egalitarianism

22. Cultural Cognition Worldviews
subject means

23. Marijuana legalization Marijuana legalization
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
climate change
nuclear power
air & water pollution
Marijuana legalization
Abortion procedure
Anti-terrorism
Individualism
Communitarianism
Marijuana legalization
Abortion procedure
Anti-terrorism
climate change
nuclear power
air & water pollution
Egalitarianism

24. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

25. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

26. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

27. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

28. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

29. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

30. They saw a statutory ambiguity . . . .
subjects: public, students, lawyers, judges (N = 1554)
Conditions 1 2
Littering: placing water dispensers
in desert = “depositing ... junk ... debris ...”?
Construction workers
Immigrant aid group
Disclosure: “knowingly violate” nondisclosure regulation = know that disclosure violates law?
Prolife counseling
Prochoice counseling

31. Predicted results for public
Predispositions
No violation
Violation
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
hierarchical communitarians
Individualism
Communitarianism
egalitarian individualists
egalitarian communitarians
Egalitarianism

32. Predicted results for public
Predispositions
No violation
Violation
Hierarchy
hierarchical individualists
Pro-choice clinic
Pro-life clinic
Individualism
Communitarianism
Pro-choice clinic
egalitarian communitarians
Pro-life clinic
Egalitarianism

33. Predicted results for public
Predispositions
No violation
Violation
Hierarchy
Immigrant aid group
Pro-choice clinic
Construction workers
Pro-life clinic
Individualism
Communitarianism
Pro-choice clinic
Immigrant aid group
Pro-life clinic
Construction workers
Egalitarianism

34. Predicted results for public
Predispositions
No violation
Violation
Hierarchy
Immigrant aid group
Pro-choice clinic
Construction workers
Pro-life clinic
Individualism
Communitarianism
Pro-choice clinic
Immigrant aid group
Pro-life clinic
Construction workers
Egalitarianism

35. Competing hypotheses for judges:
Equivalence thesis
General immunity thesis
Domain-specific immunity thesis
Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

36. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

37. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

38. Disclosure
Littering

39. Littering
Hierarch individ
Egal commun
Disclosure

40. Significant results!!

41. Littering
Disclosure

42. Littering
HI construction
40%
Disclosure

43. Littering
HI construction
40% ± 7%
Disclosure

44. Littering
HI construction
40% ± 7%
75% ± 6%
HI imm rts
Disclosure

45. Littering
34% ± 9%
HI construction
HI imm rts
Disclosure

46. Littering
27% ± 14%
HI construction
HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure

47. Littering Disclosure 22% ± 12% HI construction EC construction
HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure

48. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure

49. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure
63% ± 9% EI
prolife

50. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure
17% ± 13% EI
prochoice EI
prolife

51. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure EI
prochoice EI
prolife

52. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure EI
prochoice HC
prolife EI
prolife

53. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure
15% ± 10% HC
prochoice EI
prochoice HC
prolife EI
prolife

54. Littering Disclosure HI construction EC construction HI imm rts
EC imm rts
Disclosure HC
prochoice EI
prochoice HC
prolife EI
prolife

55. Littering Disclosure EC construction HI construction EC construction
HI imm rts
EC imm rts
EC imm rts
HI construction
HI imm rts
Disclosure HC
prochoice EI
prochoice HC
prolife EI
prolife

56. Littering Disclosure EC construction HI construction EC construction
HI imm rts
EC imm rts
EC imm rts
HI construction
HI imm rts
Disclosure HC
prochoice HC
prolife EI
prochoice HC
prolife HC
prochoice EI
prolife EI
prolife EI
prochoice

57. “IPCI”: judges vs. public
22%, ± 6%
Identity protective cognition impact

58. “IPCI”: judges vs. public
27%, ± 14%
Public
22%, ± 6%
Judge -5%, ± 12%
Identity protective cognition impact

59. Competing hypotheses for judges:
Equivalence thesis
General immunity thesis
Domain-specific immunity thesis

60. Competing hypotheses for judges:
Equivalence thesis
General immunity thesis
Domain-specific immunity thesis
Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

61. Disclosure
Littering
Hierarch individ
Egal commun

62. Avg. IPCIs
Judge
Public

63. Avg. IPCIs
Judge
Public
Lawyer
Student

64. “Weight of the evidence”
observed data 4.5x less consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10%
observed student IPCI
1.3 2 3 4
5.4 6
-.3
-.2
-.1 .1 .2 .3
H3: IPCI = 0.10
H1: IPCI = 0
Identity protective cognition impact
Students

65. “Weight of the evidence”
observed data 2x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10%
observed lawyer IPCI
1.3 2
2.8 4
5.6 6
-.3
-.2
-.1 .1 .2 .3
H3: IPCI = 0.10
H1: IPCI = 0
Identity protective cognition impact
Lawyers

66. “Weight of the evidence”
observed data 20x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10%
.25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-.3
-.2
-.1 .1 .2 .3
H3: IPCI = 0.10
H1: IPCI = 0
observed judge IPCI
Identity protective cognition impact
Judges

67. What about judges? Lawyers & students: mechanisms? Equivalence thesis
General immunity thesis
Domain-specific immunity thesis
Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

68. Identity-protective cognition & dual process reasoning:
“Motivated system 2 reasoning”

69. Pattern recognition & professional judgment

70. Gays military/gay parenting
Cultural Cognition Worldviews
Risk Perception Key
Low Risk
High Risk
Hierarchy
Environment: climate, nuclear
Gays military/gay parenting
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
cats/stupid birds
HPV Vaccination
Individualism
Communitarianism
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
Abortion procedure
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
cats/stupid birds
Egalitarianism

71. Pattern recognition & professional judgment

72. Pattern recognition & “situation sense”

73. McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168, (U.S. S. Ct. June 26, 2014)

74. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

75. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?
I. Identity-protective cognition
Study overview & hypotheses
Results
Judicial studies & the validity question

76. The validity question: Experimental studies without judges

77. The validity question: Observational studies with biased outcome measures & no predictive power

78. Human vs. Computer: Supreme Court Showdown!
The result:
Experts: 59%
Lexy: 75%!!!!!!!!!!
P(Z > )
= 0.007**
√(.59*.41)/68
Nonexpert: 72% (49 of 68)
P(Z >
) =
0.58!
√(.72*.28)/68

79. The validity question: Experimental studies of judges w/o “ideology”

81. The validity question: Do experiments “model” judicial decisionmaking

82. Societal risk perceptions
CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence for mean

83. The validity question: Do experiments “model” judicial decisionmaking

84. The validity question: How to answer it
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?”

85. New data: shame & critical reasoning!