Dan M. Kahan
Yale University
www.culturalcognition.net
Research Supported by: National Science Foundation, SES-0242106, -0621840 & -0922714 Woodrow Wilson Int’l Center for Scholars Oscar M. Ruebhausen Fund at Yale Law School
Is Ideologically Motivated Reasoning Rational?And Do Only Conservatives Engage In It?!
I. “Modeling” motivated reasoning
II. The Cultural cognition of risk (& other things)
III. Ideology, cognitive reflection & motivated reasoning
What am I talking about? . . .
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Bayesian Information Processing
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Confirmation Bias
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
ExtrinsicGoal/Interest
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
ExtrinsicGoal/Interest
Motivated ReasoningSpurious confirmation bias
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
ExtrinsicGoal/Interest
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
IdeologicalPredisposition
Ideologically Motivated Reasoning
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Motivated ReasoningSpurious confirmation bias
IdeologicalPredisposition
I. “Modeling” motivated reasoning
II. The Cultural cognition of risk (& other things)
III. Ideology, cognitive reflection & motivated reasoning
What am I talking about? . . .
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
ExtrinsicGoal/Interest
Cultural Cognition of Risk
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
CulturalPredisposition
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Hierarchy
Egalitarianism
Abortion procedure
Mary Douglas’s Group-grid worldview scheme
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Abortion procedure
compulsory psychiatric treatment
Risk Perception KeyLow RiskHigh Risk
Individualism Communitarianism
Environment: climate, nuclear
Guns/Gun Control
Guns/Gun Control
HPV Vaccination
HPV Vaccination
Gays military/gay parenting
Gays military/gay parenting
Environment: climate, nuclear
hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians
egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
CulturalPredisposition
Cultural Cognition of Risk
38
Identity Protective Cognition
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
Culturally biased search & assimilation Cultural credibility heuristic Cultural availability effect Identity-affirmation Culturally motivated “system 2” reasoning
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
nef
its >
Ris
ks
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isks
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
nef
its >
Ris
ks
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Ben
efits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
nef
its >
Ris
ks
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
63%
77%
61%
85%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts
> Ri
sks
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano86%
61%
23%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits >
R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isks
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
63%
77%
61%
85%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts
> Ri
sks
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano86%
61%
23%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits >
R
isks
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isk
s
High Risk
ModerateRisk
SlightRisk
Almost NoRisk
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
Internet Mad CowDisease
NuclearPower
GeneticallyModifiedFoods
Private GunOwnership
Familiar with NanotechnologyUnfamiliar with Nanotechnology
n = 1,820 to 1,830. Risk variables are 4-pt measures of “risk to people in American Society” posed by indicated risk. Differences between group means all significant at p ≤ .01.
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits
> R
isks
63%
77%
61%
85%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts
> Ri
sks
Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano86%
61%
23%
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-ExposedExperimental Condition
Bene
ifts >
Risk
s
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
*
*
* Change across conditions significant at p < 0.05
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
No Information Information-Exposed
Be
ne
ift
s >
R
isk
s
Experiment Condition Experiment ConditionNo Info. No Info.Info.-Exposed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
85%77%
61% 61%
Info.-Exposed
86%*
23%*
63%Unfamiliar with Nano
Familiar with Nano
Figure 1
EgalitarianCommunitarian
HierarchicalIndividualist
Be
ne
fits >
R
isks
Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture
Per
ceiv
e B
enef
its
> R
isks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
0.9%2.2%
3.6%
5.8%
19.5%
-1.4%-0.9%-0.9%-0.5%-2.6%
0%
-5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
5%
Incr
ease
in
Pre
dic
ted
Lik
elih
oo
d o
f S
elf-
Rep
ort
ed F
amil
iari
ty w
ith
Nan
ote
chn
olo
gy
Hierarch
Egalitarian
20th 40th 60th 80th 99th
Communitarian IndividualisticPercentile
Figure S1
1st
Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition of Nanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Cultural Cognition of Risk
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
Culturally biased search & assimilation Cultural credibility heuristic Cultural availability effect Identity-affirmation Culturally motivated “system 2” reasoning
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
CulturalPredisposition
Cultural Cognition of Risk
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Spurious confirmation bias
CulturalPredisposition
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
CulturalPredisposition
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Control Condition
Anti-pollution Condition
Geoengineering Condition
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
control pollution geoengineering
more polarization
lesspolarization
Polarizationz_
Stud
y di
smis
s 2
anti-pollution
Kahan, Jenkins-Smith, Tarantola, Silva & Braman, Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment, CCP Working Paper No. 92 (Jan. 9, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1981907
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
Culturally biased search & assimilation Cultural credibility heuristic Cultural availability effect Identity-affirmation Culturally motivated “system 2” reasoning
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 Climate Change 2, 732-735 (2012).
Two Hypotheses
1. Public Irrationality Thesis (PIT)
2. Cultural cognition thesis (CCT)
• “science illiteracy”• “bounded rationality”
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ri
sk (
z-sc
ore)
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ri
sk (
z-sc
ore)
PIT prediction: Science Illiteracy & Bounded Rationality
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
High Sci. litearcy/System 2 (“slow”)
Low Sci. litearcy/System 1 (“fast”)
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
Lesser Risk
Greater Risk
Science literacy Numeracy
low high
perc
eive
d ri
sk (
z-sc
ore)
low high
PIT prediction PIT prediction
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
30b 30t 30b 30t
actual varianceactual variance
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low Sci lit/numeracy
High Sci lit/numeracy
Cultural Variance
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Hierarchical Individualist
Egalitarian Communitarian
Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/numeracy?
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
High Sci lit/numeracy
Egalitarian Communitarian
PIT prediction: Culture as heuristic substitute
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low highHierarchical Individualist
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Greater
Lesser
perc
eive
d ris
k (z
-sco
re)
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
point 1 point 2
low vs. high sci
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?”
High Sci lit/numeracy
Low Sci lit/numeracy
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
sci_num
Low Sci lit/num.Hierarc Individ
POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases
High Sci lit/numeracyEgal Comm
High Sci lit/numeracyHierarch Individ
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
low high
Low Sci/lit numeracyEgal Comm
U.S. general population survey, N = 1,500. Scale 0 (“no risk at all”) to 10 (“extreme risk”), M = 5.7, SD = 3.4. CIs reflect 0.95 level of confidence.
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
CulturalWorldview
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
System 1 and System 2
Cultural Cognition of Risk
Mechanisms of cultural cognition
Culturally biased search & assimilation Cultural credibility heuristic Cultural availability effect Identity-affirmation Culturally motivated “system 2” reasoning
I. “Modeling” motivated reasoning
II. The Cultural cognition of risk (& other things)
III. Ideology, cognitive reflection & motivated reasoning
What am I talking about? . . .
“Asymmetry thesis”
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
Cultural Cognition
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
System 1 and System 2
CulturalPredisposition
38
Identity Protective Cognition
Identity Protective Cognition
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
Finding # 1. Political differences in CRT are trivial
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
Democrat
Republican
CRT Score
Democrat
Republican
N = 1600. Derived from ordered logit regression. Outcome variable is CRT score. Predictor is 7-point partisan self-identification measure. Predictor value set at 2 for “Democrat” and 6 for “Republican.” CIs are 0.95 level of confidence.
Like
lihoo
d of
Sco
re
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
100-120
20-30
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
Democrat
Republican
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
white
nonwhite
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
low relig
high relig
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
male
female
female
male
High religion
Low religion
white
Nonwhite
$20K-$30K
$100K-$120K
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
College
HS
high school grad
college grad
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1 2 3
Democrat
RepublicanRepublican
Democrat
CRT Score
Like
lihoo
d of
Sco
re
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
Psychologists believe the questions you have just answered measure how reflective and open-minded someone is.
How strongly do you agree or disagree with this statement? [strongly disagree, moderately disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, moderately disagree, strongly disagree]
“I think the word-problem test I just took supplies good evidence of how reflective and open-minded someone is.”
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1. Control condition
Psychologists believe the questions you have just answered measure how reflective and open-minded someone is....
2. Skeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who accept evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who reject evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who believe climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who are skeptical that climate change is happening....
3. Nonskeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who reject evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who accept evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who are skeptical that climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who believe climate change is happening....
1. Control condition
Psychologists believe the questions you have just answered measure how reflective and open-minded someone is....
2. Skeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who accept evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who reject evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who believe climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who are skeptical that climate change is happening....
3. Nonskeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who reject evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who accept evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who are skeptical that climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who believe climate change is happening....
“Asymmetry thesis”
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
IdeologicalPredisposition
Ideologically Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Prior:other side
displays IMR
Other side’sCRT score
IdeologicalPredisposition
Ideologically Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
Revised:other side
displays IMR
NewEvidence
PriorFactualBelief
NewEvidence
RevisedFactualBelief
IdeologicalPredisposition
Ideologically Motivated Reasoning
prior odds X likelihood ratio = posterior odds
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
.1.2
.3.4
.5.6
.7.8
-2 -1 0 1 2
control
“skeptic-is-biased” condition
“believer-is -biased” condition
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g CR
T “v
alid
”
Liberal Dem Conserv RepubConserv_Repub
.1.2
.3.4
.5.6
.7.8
-2 -1 0 1 2
control
“skeptic-is-biased” condition
“believer-is -biased” condition
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g C
RT
“val
id”
Liberal Dem Conserv RepubConserv_Repub
Finding # 2. Ideologically biased assimilation of “validity of CRT”
control
“nonskeptic is biased”
“skeptic is biased”
Fitted ordered-logit regression analysis values. Y-axis reflects predicted probability of agreeing either “slightly,” “moderately,” or “strongly” with CRT_valid.
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
1,800 adults drawn from nationally representative on-line panel
Political ideology & party affiliation Cognitive reflection test (CRT) Perceived validity of CRT
control vs. “skeptic-is-biased” & “nonskeptic-is-biased”
Sample
Measures
Experimental Manipulation
Study design
Kahan, Ideology, Motivated Reasoning, and Cognitive Reflection, CCP Working Paper No. 107 (Nov. 19, 2012), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588
.1.2
.3.4
.5.6
.7.8
-2 -1 0 1 2
control
“skeptic-is-biased” condition
“believer-is -biased” condition
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g CR
T “v
alid
”
Liberal Dem Conserv RepubConserv_Repub
.1.2
.3.4
.5.6
.7.8
-2 -1 0 1 2
control
“skeptic-is-biased” condition
“believer-is -biased” condition
Like
lihoo
d of
agr
eein
g C
RT
“val
id”
Liberal Dem Conserv RepubConserv_Repub
Finding # 2. Ideologically biased assimilation of “validity of CRT”
control
“nonskeptic is biased”
“skeptic is biased”
Fitted ordered-logit regression analysis values. Y-axis reflects predicted probability of agreeing either “slightly,” “moderately,” or “strongly” with CRT_valid.
Finding # 3. Ideologically biased assimilation increases with CRT
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"
Lib Dem Hi CRT
Con Repub Hi CRT
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Control "Skeptic biased" "Nonskeptic biased"
Lib Dem
Con Repub
Likel
ihoo
d of
agre
eing
CRT
“val
id”
(A) (B)
Conservative RepublicanLow CRT
Liberal DemocratLow CRT
Conservative RepublicanHigh CRT
Liberal DemocratHigh CRT
control skeptic-is-biased nonskeptic-is-biased control skeptic-is-biased nonskeptic-is-biased
Note. N = 1750. Derived from ordered logit regression. Point estimates of predicted likelihood of agreeing (slightly, moderately or strongly) that CRT test is valid. CIs are 0.95 level of confidence.
1. Control condition
Psychologists believe the questions you have just answered measure how reflective and open-minded someone is....
2. Skeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who accept evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who reject evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who believe climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who are skeptical that climate change is happening....
3. Nonskeptic-is-biased condition
... In one recent study, a researcher found that people who reject evidence of climate change tend to get more answers correct than those who accept evidence of climate change. If the test is a valid way to measure open-mindedness, that finding would imply that those who are skeptical that climate change is happening are more open-minded than those who believe climate change is happening....
Is Ideologically Motivated Reasoning Rational?And Do Only Conservatives Engage In It?!
vs.
Is Ideologically Motivated Reasoning Rational?And Do Only Conservatives Engage In It?!
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
source: Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman, Danieli Evans & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, They Saw a Protest : Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction, 64 Stan. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012)
Experimental Conditions
Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
source: Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, Donald Braman, Danieli Evans & Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, They Saw a Protest : Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction, 64 Stan. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2011)
Pct
. Agr
ee
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 Anti-abortion
Anti-military Anti-abortion
Anti-military
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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
Police liable Enjoin police Damages vs. police
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%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Protestors blocked
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Police just annoyed
0%
25%
50%
75%
100%
abortion clinic recruitment center abortion clinic recruitment center
EI v. HC EC v. HI
Pedesterians not want to listen
Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment
Go to www.culturalcognition.net!
Top Related