www.culturalcognition.net is ideologically motivated reasoning rational? and do only conservatives...

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


Confirmation Bias


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Motivated Reasoning


ExtrinsicGoal/Interest

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence




Motivated ReasoningSpurious confirmation bias

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Motivated Reasoning



PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Motivated Reasoning


IdeologicalPredisposition

Ideologically Motivated Reasoning

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence



Motivated ReasoningSpurious confirmation bias


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Motivated Reasoning



Cultural Cognition of Risk

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Motivated Reasoning


CulturalPredisposition


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


Cultural Cognition




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%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

nef

its >

Ris

ks



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Ben

efits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

Per

ceiv

e B

enef

its

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

nef

its >

Ris

ks



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

Per

ceiv

e B

enef

its

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



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%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s

Hierarchical Individualist

Egalitarian Communitarian

*

*


Source: Kahan , Braman, Slovic, Gastil & Cohen Cultural Cognition ofNanotechnology Risks and Benefits, Nature Nanotechnology, 4(2), 87-91 (2009)

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits >

R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*



Information effect: familiarity Information effect: culture

Per

ceiv

e B

enef

its

> R

isks

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



Familiar with Nano*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts

> Ri

sks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits >

R

isks


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%



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits

> R

isks

63%

77%

61%

85%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts

> Ri

sks



61%

23%

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Bene

ifts >

Risk

s



*

*



0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s

0%

25%

50%

75%

100%


Be

ne

ift

s >

R

isk

s


0%

25%

50%

75%

100%

85%77%

61% 61%

Info.-Exposed

86%*

23%*


Familiar with Nano

Figure 1



Be

ne

fits >

R

isks


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


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview



PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence





PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence



Spurious confirmation bias


PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence





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

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2182588

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”)



-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



-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


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



Cultural variance conditional on sci. literacy/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

-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

low high

-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



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


-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



Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...


-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


-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




-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




-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high


Actual interaction of culture & sci-lit/num...


-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




-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


POLARIZATION INCREASES as scil-lit/numeracy increases



-1.00

-0.75

-0.50

-0.25

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

low high



PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


CulturalWorldview


System 1 and System 2


“Asymmetry thesis”

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence


Cultural Cognition


System 1 and System 2


38


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




Sample

Measures


Study design


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.”




Sample

Measures


Study design


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





Prior:other side

displays IMR

Other side’sCRT score




Revised:other side

displays IMR

NewEvidence

PriorFactualBelief

NewEvidence








Sample

Measures


Study design



.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



Like

lihoo

d of

agr

eein

g C

RT

“val

id”


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.




Sample

Measures


Study design



.1.2

.3.4

.5.6

.7.8

-2 -1 0 1 2

control



Like

lihoo

d of

agr

eein

g CR

T “v

alid

”


.1.2

.3.4

.5.6

.7.8

-2 -1 0 1 2

control



Like

lihoo

d of

agr

eein

g C

RT

“val

id”


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....


vs.

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

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


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

Cultural Cognition Cat Scan Experiment

Go to www.culturalcognition.net!

www.culturalcognition.net is ideologically motivated reasoning rational? and do only conservatives...

Documents

posterior odds slide

motivated reasoning

modeling motivated reasoning

benefits risks

motivated reasoning

risk n

risk variables

motivated system