Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDaniel Richards Modified over 8 years ago
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
Similar presentations
© 2024 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.