Cognitive Illiberalism
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?” 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, (2012).
“Skin cream experiment”
Rash Decreases Rash Increases Experimental condition
Numeracy
Correct interpretation of data rash decreases rash increases Numeracy score Lowess smoother superimposed on raw data.
numeracy score at & above which subjects can be expected to correctly interpret data. Numeracy
“Gun ban experiment”
Four conditions
Correct interpretation of data
0 “Conserv_Repub” Conserv_Repub is standardized sum of standardized responses to 5-point liberal-conservative ideology and 7-point party- self-identification measures.
Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
Correct interpretation of data Liberal Democrats (< 0 on Conservrepub) Conserv Republicans (> 0 on Conservrepub)
N = 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 < 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)
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
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.
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.
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.
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%)
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, (2012).
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
Did protestors cross the line between “speech” and “intimidation”?
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
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 (2011)
Experimental Conditions Recruitment Center ConditionAbortion Clinic Condition
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 (2011)
Hierarchy Egalitarianism Individualism Communitarianism hierarchical individualists hierarchical communitarians egalitarian communitariansegalitarian individualists Cultural Cognition Worldviews
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
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Abortion Clinic Recruitment Ctr
Pct. Agree Protestors blocked Screamed in face Pedestrians just not want to listen Police just annoyed
“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 (2011)
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
“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 (2011)
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%)
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
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%)
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
What am I talking about? Cultural cognition cognitive illiberalism 1. “Motivated numeracy” 2. “Noncommunicative harm principle” 3. Cognitive illiberalism: how big is the problem?
www. culturalcognition.net “I am you!”