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

2. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning?

3. I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question

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

9. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.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.... 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)

16. 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)

17. 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)

18. 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)

19. 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)

20. Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism Cultural Cognition Worldviews

21. 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

22. Cultural Cognition Worldviews subject means

23. 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

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.... 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

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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

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

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

38. Disclosure Littering

39. Disclosure Littering Hierarch individ Egal commun

40. Significant results!!

41. Disclosure Littering

42. Disclosure Littering HI construction 40%

43. Disclosure Littering HI construction 40% ± 7%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

55. 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

56. 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

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

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

59. Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis

60. Competing hypotheses for judges: 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

61. Disclosure Littering Hierarch individ Egal commun

62. Judge Public Avg. IPCIs

63. Judge Public Lawyer Student Avg. IPCIs

64. 0 1.3 2 3 4 5.4 6 -.3-.2-.10.1.2.3 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

65. observed data 2x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10% 0 1.3 2 2.8 4 5.6 6 -.3-.2-.10.1.2.3 observed lawyer IPCI Identity protective cognition impact H1: IPCI = 0 “Weight of the evidence” H3: IPCI = 0.10 Lawyers

66. Identity protective cognition impact H1: IPCI = 0 observed judge IPCI 0.25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 -.3-.2-.10.1.2.3 H3: IPCI = 0.10 “Weight of the evidence” observed data 20x more consistent with IPCI = 0 than with IPCI = 10% Judges

67. What about judges? 1.Equivalence thesis 2.General immunity thesis 3.Domain-specific immunity thesis Lawyers & students: mechanisms?

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

69. Pattern recognition & professional judgment

70. 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

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 II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.Judicial studies & the validity question

75. Does political ideology trump legal reasoning? I. Identity-protective cognition II.Study overview & hypotheses III.Results IV.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%!!!!!!!!!! Nonexpert: 72% (49 of 68) P(Z >.75-.59 √(.59*.41)/68 )= 0.007** P(Z >.75-.72 √(.72*.28)/68 ) = 0.58!

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. 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

85. New data: shame & critical reasoning! www.culturalcognition.net