Download presentation

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Published bySantos Mattox Modified over 2 years ago

1
Cognitive Illiberalism www.culturalcognition.net

2
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?

3
Motivated Numeracy

4
“How much risk do you believe climate change poses to human health, safety, or prosperity?” 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).

5
“Skin cream experiment”

7
Rash Decreases Rash Increases Experimental condition

8
Numeracy

9
Correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases Numeracy score Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.

10
numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data. Numeracy

11
“Gun ban experiment”

12
Four conditions

13
Correct interpretation of data

14
0 “Conserv_Repub” Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party- self-identification measures.

15
Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

16
Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)

17
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_decrease0.40(1.57) rash increase0.06(0.22) crime increase1.07(4.02) z_numeracy-0.01(-0.05) z_numeracy_x_rash_decrease0.55(2.29) z_numeracy_x_rash_increase0.23(1.05) z_numeracy_x_crime_increase0.46(2.01) z_numeracy20.31(2.46) z_numeracy2_x_rash_decrease0.02(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_decrease0.56(2.64) Conserv_Repub_x_rash_increase1.28(6.02) Conserv_Repub_x_crime_increase0.63(2.82) z_numeracy_x_Conserv_repub-0.33(-1.89) z_nuneracy_x_Conserv_Repub_x_rash_decrease0.33(1.40) z_nuneracy_x__x_rash_increase0.54(2.17) z_nuneracy_x__x_crime_increase0.26(1.08) _constant-0.96(-4.70)

18
High numeracyLow numeracy high numeracy = 8 correct low numeracy = 3 correct Regression model predicted probabilities skin treatment Gun ban probabilility of correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases 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

19
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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.

20
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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.

21
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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.

22
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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. Avg. “polarization” on crime data for low numeracy partisans 25% (± 9%) Avg. “polarization” on crime data for high numeracy partisans 46% (± 17%)

23
Perceived climate change risk 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).

24
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?

26
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?

27
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

28
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

29
Select fact perception items Case-outcome items

30
“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)

31
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition

32
Select fact perception items Case-outcome items

33
“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)

34
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews

35
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Gays military/gay parenting Guns/Gun Control hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews

36
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

37
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

38
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

39
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

40
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

41
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

42
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr

43
Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed

44
“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)

45
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?

46
“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)

47
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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. Avg. “polarization” on crime data for low numeracy partisans 25% (± 9%) Avg. “polarization” on crime data for high numeracy partisans 46% (± 17%)

48
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Gays military/gay parenting Guns/Gun Control egalitarian communitarians Cultural Cognition Worldviews

49
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 Liberal Democrat more likely Conservative Republican more likely 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. Avg. “polarization” on crime data for low numeracy partisans 25% (± 9%) Avg. “polarization” on crime data for high numeracy partisans 46% (± 17%)

50
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Abortion procedure Cultural Cognition Worldviews compulsory psychiatric treatment Abortion procedure compulsory psychiatric treatment Risk Perception Key Low Risk High Risk Individualism Communitarianism Environment: climate, nuclear Guns/Gun Control HPV Vaccination Gays military/gay parenting Environment: climate, nuclear

51
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?

52
www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”

Similar presentations

© 2017 SlidePlayer.com Inc.

All rights reserved.

Ads by Google