IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v65y2021i1p180-196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation

Author

Listed:
  • Eric Groenendyk
  • Yanna Krupnikov

Abstract

Rather than exhibiting bias or open‐minded reasoning at baseline, we argue that information processing is motivated by whatever goals a context makes salient. Thus, if politics feels like debate, people will be motivated to argue for their side. If politics feels like deliberation, they will be motivated to seek consensus through open‐minded processing. Results from three experiments demonstrate: (1) Politics evokes thoughts similar to conflictual contexts and dissimilar from deliberative contexts. (2) Consequently, information labeled “political” primes the motivation to counterargue, leading to opinion polarization. Absent such labeling, no such motivation is evident, explaining why bias is common but not inherent to politics. (3) Despite this capacity for bias, people can be motivated to actively process and accept counterattitudinal information by simply making the value of open‐mindedness salient. This suggests open‐minded discourse is possible even absent motivation to evaluate information accurately. We conclude by discussing the implications of our research for political discourse.

Suggested Citation

  • Eric Groenendyk & Yanna Krupnikov, 2021. "What Motivates Reasoning? A Theory of Goal‐Dependent Political Evaluation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 65(1), pages 180-196, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:65:y:2021:i:1:p:180-196
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12562
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12562
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12562?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dan M. Kahan, 2013. "Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 8(4), pages 407-424, July.
    2. repec:cup:judgdm:v:8:y:2013:i:4:p:407-424 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lupia,Arthur & McCubbins,Mathew D., 1998. "The Democratic Dilemma," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521584487, Enero.
    4. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, 2007. "Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 51(4), pages 940-956, October.
    5. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    6. Guess, Andrew & Coppock, Alexander, 2020. "Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments – CORRIGENDUM," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1517-1517, October.
    7. Bryan Caplan, 2007. "Introduction to The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies," Introductory Chapters, in: The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies, Princeton University Press.
    8. Barabas, Jason, 2004. "How Deliberation Affects Policy Opinions," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(4), pages 687-701, November.
    9. Guess, Andrew & Coppock, Alexander, 2020. "Does Counter-Attitudinal Information Cause Backlash? Results from Three Large Survey Experiments," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1497-1515, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Patrick Bernhagen & Hermann Schmitt, 2014. "Deliberation, political knowledge and vote choice: Results from an experiment with second-order elections," European Union Politics, , vol. 15(3), pages 352-371, September.
    2. William Keech & Michael Munger, 2015. "The anatomy of government failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 164(1), pages 1-42, July.
    3. Schnellenbach, Jan & Schubert, Christian, 2015. "Behavioral political economy: A survey," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 40(PB), pages 395-417.
    4. Micael Castanheira & Gaëtan Nicodème & Paola Profeta, 2012. "On the political economics of tax reforms: survey and empirical assessment," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 19(4), pages 598-624, August.
    5. repec:wly:soecon:v:80:4:y:2014:p:926-937 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Andrea Tesei & Filipe Campante & Ruben Durante, 2022. "Media and Social Capital," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 69-91, August.
    7. Pavel Yakovlev, 2007. "Ideology, Shirking, and the Incumbency Advantage in the U.S. House of Representatives," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 4(33), pages 1-6.
    8. Piketty, Thomas, 1999. "The information-aggregation approach to political institutions," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 43(4-6), pages 791-800, April.
    9. Ben M. Tappin & Adam J. Berinsky & David G. Rand, 2023. "Partisans’ receptivity to persuasive messaging is undiminished by countervailing party leader cues," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 7(4), pages 568-582, April.
    10. Jennings, Colin, 2011. "The good, the bad and the populist: A model of political agency with emotional voters," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 611-624.
    11. Brad R. Taylor, 2020. "The psychological foundations of rational ignorance: biased heuristics and decision costs," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 31(1), pages 70-88, March.
    12. Louis Jaeck & Sehjeong Kim, 2018. "FDI Deregulation Versus Labor Market Reform: a Political Economy Approach," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 46(1), pages 73-89, March.
    13. Catarina Goulão, 2015. "Voluntary public health insurance," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 162(1), pages 135-157, January.
    14. Valentino Larcinese, 2009. "Information Acquisition, Ideology and Turnout: Theory and Evidence From Britain," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 21(2), pages 237-276, April.
    15. Randall G. Holcombe, 2018. "Checks and Balances: Enforcing Constitutional Constraints," Economies, MDPI, vol. 6(4), pages 1-12, October.
    16. Justus Enninga & Ryan M. Yonk, 2023. "Achieving Ecological Reflexivity: The Limits of Deliberation and the Alternative of Free-Market-Environmentalism," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(8), pages 1-14, April.
    17. Bonatti, Luigi & Fracasso, Andrea, 2019. "Policy inertia, self-defeating expectations and structural reforms: can policy modeling cope?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 41(5), pages 943-962.
    18. Nicolás Maloberti, 2021. "Nudges for better voters," Economic Affairs, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 41(2), pages 271-283, June.
    19. David Hirshleifer, 2008. "Psychological Bias as a Driver of Financial Regulation," European Financial Management, European Financial Management Association, vol. 14(5), pages 856-874, November.
    20. Cristian López, 2024. "The More Democracy, the Better? On Whether Democracy Makes Societies Open," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-22, May.
    21. Benjamin Ogden, 2017. "The Imperfect Beliefs Voting Model," Working Papers ECARES ECARES 2017-20, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:65:y:2021:i:1:p:180-196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.