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

4. www.culturalcognition.net “They Saw a Protest”: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Noncommunicative Harm Principle Stanford Law Review (in press)

5. 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)

6. 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)

7. 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)

8. 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)

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

10. 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)

11. 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)

12. Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

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

14. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

15. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87) }

16. Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

17. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (pro_protest)

18. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

19. Select fact perception items Case-outcome items

20. “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)

21. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

22. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

23. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Cultural Cognition Worldviews Communitarianism hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

24. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

25. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

26. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator Hypotheses

27. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator Hypotheses

28. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator Hypotheses “Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization”

29. 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  EI/HC: Complete polarization  EC/HI: Semi-polarization Sample Stimulus Experimental Manipulation Measures Hypotheses } composite scale (z_pro_protest, α = 0.87)

30. Pct. Agree Sample-wide Responses

31. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

32. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

33. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

34. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

35. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

36. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

37. Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

38. Anti- demonstrator Pro- demonstrator “Complete Polarization” “Semi-polarization” Hypotheses

39. Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

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

41. Discussion: 1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative 2. Liberal democratic legitimacy 3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges) } Cognitive Illiberalism

42. Prior Factual Belief New Evidence Revised Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds

43. Prior Factual Belief New Evidence Revised Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 1:20

44. Prior Factual Belief Scream in Face Revised Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 1:20 10 200:1 1:2

45. Prior Factual Belief Revised Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 1:20 10 200:1 1:200 0.1

46. Prior Factual Belief Revised Factual Belief prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds 20:1 1:20 10 200:1 1:200 0.1 Cultural Worldview

47. Discussion: 1. Decisionmaking bias * cognitive * legal /normative 2. Liberal democratic legitimacy 3. Debiasing * self-affirmation (jury) * “Aporia” (judges) } Cognitive Illiberalism

48. Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School Donald Braman George Washington University John Gastil University of Washington Geoffrey Cohen Stanford University Paul Slovic University of Oregon Ellen Peters Ohio State University Hank Jenkins-Smith University of Oklahoma David Hoffman Temple Law School Gregory Mandel Temple Law School Maggie Wittlin Cultural Cognition Project Lab Lisa Larrimore-Ouelette Cultural Cognition Project Lab Danieli Evans Cultural Cognition Project Lab June Carbone Univ. Missouri-Kansas City Michael Jones Safra Ethics Center, Harv. Univ. Naomi Cahn George Washington University Jeffrey Rachlinksi Cornell Law School John Byrnes Cultural Cognition Project Lab John Monahan University of Virginia

49. www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”