Cognitive Illiberalism .

Cognitive Illiberalism

Dan M. Kahan Yale Law School

& many many others!

www.culturalcognition.net

Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES--0922714 Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School

What am I talking about?

Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism

1. “Motivated numeracy”

2. “Noncommunicative harm principle”

3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?

Motivated Numeracy

“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”

Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Science literacy/numeracy

Greater

Lesser

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)

Egalitarian Communitarian

Hierarchical Individualist

Actual ResponseGreater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)



Actual Response

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re) Egalitarian Communitarian


Actual Response

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)




Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)



Actual Response

source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, 2, 732-35 (2012).

“Skin cream experiment”

Rash Decreases

Rash Increases

Experimental condition

Numeracy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

Numeracy scoreEntire Sample

Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples

Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0

01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

scatterplot: skin treatment

Correct interpretation of data

rash decreases

rash increases

Numeracy score

01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.

numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data.

Numeracy

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

Numeracy scoreEntire Sample

Numeracy scorePolitical outlook subsamples

Conserv_Repub > 0Conserv_Repub < 0

“Gun ban experiment”

Four conditions

01

corr

ect

inte

rpre

tatio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreasesrash increases

Numeracy score

01

correct interpretation of data (

=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy



01

corr

ect i

nter

pre

tatio

n of

dat

a (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

scatterplot: gun ban

Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreasescrime increases

0.0

5.1

.15

.2D

en

sity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

liberal Democrat

0.0

5.1

.15

.2D

en

sity

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

conservative Republican

Liberal Democrat Conservative Republican

Zconservrepub0

0.0

5.1

.15

.2D

ensi

ty

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy

Sample overall

0“Conserv_Repub”

Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party-self-identification measures.


Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01

correct interpretation of da

ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases

rash increasesrash decreases

rash increases

Numeracy score01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corre

ct int

erpr

etatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_correct interpretation of data (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

skin cream

01

correct interpretation of da

ta (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


rash decreases


rash increases

Numeracy score01

n_co

rrect interp

retatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

corre

ct int

erpr

etatio

n of d

ata (=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_correct interpretation of data (=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01

co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

01

n_co

rrect in

terp

reta

tio

n o

f d

ata

(=

1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9n_numeracy

gun ban

Numeracy score

01


=1)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9numeracy


crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases


Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub)Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

N = 1111. Outcome variable is “Correct” (0 = incorrect interpretation of data, 1 = correct interpretation). Predictor estimates are logit coefficients with z-test statistic indicated parenthetically. Experimental assignment predictors—rash_decrease, rash_increase, and crime_increase—are dummy variables (0 = unassigned, 1 = assigned—with assignment to “crime decreases” as the comparison condition. Z_numeracy and Conserv_Repub are centered at 0 for ease of interpretation. Bolded typeface indicates predictor coefficient is significant at p < 0.05.

Best fitting regression model for experiment results

rash_decrease 0.40 (1.57)rash increase 0.06 (0.22)crime increase 1.07 (4.02)z_numeracy -0.01 (-0.05)z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease 0.55 (2.29)z_numeracy_x_rash_increase 0.23 (1.05)z_numeracy_x_crime_increase 0.46 (2.01)z_numeracy2 0.31 (2.46)z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease 0.02 (0.14)z_numeracy2_x_rash_increase -0.07 (-0.39)z_numeracy2_x_crime_increase -0.31 (-1.75)Conserv_Repub -0.64 (-3.95)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.56 (2.64)Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase 1.28 (6.02)Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase 0.63 (2.82)z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub -0.33 (-1.89)z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease 0.33 (1.40)z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase 0.54 (2.17)z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase 0.26 (1.08)_constant -0.96 (-4.70)

0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 .6 .7 .8 .9 1kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0142




High numeracyLow numeracy

high numeracy = 8 correctlow numeracy = 3 correct

Regression model predicted probabilities

skin treatment

Gun ban

probabilility of correct interpretation of data probabilility of correct interpretation of data

rash decreases

rash increases

rash decreases


rash increases

rash decreases

rash increases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

crime decreases

crime increases

Liberal Democrat (-1 SD on Conservrepub)Conserv Republican (+1 SD on Conservrepub)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

crime decreases

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

Liberal Democratmore likely

Conservative Republicanmore likely

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

Partisan Differences in Probability of Correct Interpretation Of Data

Pct. difference in probability of correct interpretation of data

Predicted difference in probability of correct interpretation, based on regression model. Predictors for partisanship set at + 1 & - 1 SD on Conserv_Republican scale. Predictors for “low” and “high” numeracy set at 2 and 8 correct, respectively. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse



-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse




-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse



-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse




-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse



-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse




Avg. “polarization”on crime data

for low numeracypartisans

25% (± 9%)


for high numeracypartisans

46% (± 17%)

Perceived climate change risk

Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


Greater

Lesser

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)




Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)



Actual Response

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re) Egalitarian Communitarian


Actual Response

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high

Greater

Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)




Lesser


Low High

perc

eive

d ri

sk (z

-sco

re)



Actual Response

source: Kahan, D.M., Peters, E., Wittlin, M., Slovic, P., Ouellette, L.L., Braman, D. & Mandel, G. The polarizing impact of science literacy and numeracy on perceived climate change risks. Nature Clim. Change, 2, 732-35 (2012).

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

Experimental Conditions

Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition



Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any hospital or medical clinic that is licensed to perform abortions. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.

Freedom to Serve with Honor Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any facility in which the U.S. military is engaged in recruitment activity. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.

1. DTHREAT. The protestors threatened individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

2. DINTIMIDATE. The protestors intimidated individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

3. DOBSTRUCT. The protestors obstructed individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

4. PLISTEN. The people who decided not to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center did not feel threatened or intimidated; they just didn’t want to have to listen to what the protestors were saying.

5. PANNOY. It is more likely the police broke up the protest because they found dealing with the entire situation annoying or inconvenient than because they believed the protestors were violating the law.

6. DVIOLENCE. There was a risk that the protestors might resort to violence if anyone tried to enter.

7. DSCREAM. One or more the protestor screamed in face of people who wanted to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

1. LIABILITY. I would vote to find the police did not have the evidence necessary to stop the protest under the Freedom to Serve with Honor Law/The Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law.

2. DAMAGES. I would vote to order the police to pay damages to the protestors.

ORDER. I would vote to order the police not to interfere with protests under conditions like the ones shown in the video.

Select fact perception items

Case-outcome items

“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)



Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any hospital or medical clinic that is licensed to perform abortions. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.

Freedom to Serve with Honor Law Section 1. Prohibited Conduct. It is against the law for any person to intentionally (1) interfere with, (2) obstruct, (3) intimidate, or (4) threaten any person who is seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on premises of any facility in which the U.S. military is engaged in recruitment activity. Section 2. Order to Desist. If a law enforcement officer observes or is furnished with reliable evidence that any person is engaged in behavior in violation of section 1, the officer may order such person to desist and to leave the immediate vicinity.

1. DTHREAT. The protestors threatened individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

2. DINTIMIDATE. The protestors intimidated individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

3. DOBSTRUCT. The protestors obstructed individuals seeking to enter, exit, or remain lawfully on the premises of the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

4. PLISTEN. The people who decided not to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center did not feel threatened or intimidated; they just didn’t want to have to listen to what the protestors were saying.

5. PANNOY. It is more likely the police broke up the protest because they found dealing with the entire situation annoying or inconvenient than because they believed the protestors were violating the law.

6. DVIOLENCE. There was a risk that the protestors might resort to violence if anyone tried to enter.

7. DSCREAM. One or more the protestor screamed in face of people who wanted to enter the abortion clinic campus recruitment center.

1. LIABILITY. I would vote to find the police did not have the evidence necessary to stop the protest under the Freedom to Serve with Honor Law/The Freedom to Exercise Reproductive Rights Law.

2. DAMAGES. I would vote to order the police to pay damages to the protestors.

ORDER. I would vote to order the police not to interfere with protests under conditions like the ones shown in the video.

Select fact perception items

Case-outcome items

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Individualism Communitarianism

hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists

Cultural Cognition Worldviews

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure

Abortion procedure

Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk


Gays military/gay parenting

Gays military/gay parenting Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Controlhierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians

egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military Anti-abortion Anti-military

Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion

Anti-military Anti-abortion


Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e

Abortion Clinic Abortion Clinic Recruitment CtrRecruitment Ctr

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

Pct.

Agre

e

Protestors blocked Screamed in face

Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-

abortion

Anti-military Anti-

abortion

Anti-military Anti-

abortion

Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

50%

69%

43%

56%

25% 25%29%

77%

13%

70%

8%

37%

26%

16%

70%

32%

39%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Anti-abortion



Anti-military


Egal Comm

Egal Indivd

Hier Comm

Hier Individ

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center

EI v. HC EC v. HI

Screamed in face

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Protestors blocked

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Police just annoyed

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


EI v. HC EC v. HI

Pedesterians not want to listen

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse



-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse






25% (± 9%)



46% (± 17%)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure

Abortion procedure





Guns/Gun Control

egalitarian communitarians


-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Rash decrease

Rash increase

Crime decrease

Crime increase

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

Low numeracy

High numeracy

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse

-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse



-80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

rash decrease

rash increase

crime decrease

crime increse






25% (± 9%)



46% (± 17%)

Hierarchy

Egalitarianism

Abortion procedure


compulsory psychiatric treatment

Abortion procedure

compulsory psychiatric treatment



Environment: climate, nuclear

Guns/Gun Control

Guns/Gun Control

HPV Vaccination

HPV Vaccination



Environment: climate, nuclear

www. culturalcognition.net

“I am you!”

Cognitive Illiberalism .

Documents

Transcript of Cognitive Illiberalism .