Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies
In: APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper
In: APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 21, Heft 1, S. 135-159
ISSN: 1467-9221
This study attempts to account for the vastly different trajectories taken by mass andelite opinion in the wake of the Lewinsky affair. Data from a panel study, collected before andjust after the scandal broke, suggest that Clinton's prior popularity indelibly colored massresponse to the scandal, thereby constraining citizens' reactions. As would be predicted bytheories of "motivated reasoning," the influence of various considerations (like thecredibility and importance of the allegations) on reactions to the scandal was conditional uponprior affect for the president. Such findings are difficult to accommodate within the more rational"Bayesian updating" perspective. These data shed light on mass response to theLewinsky scandal in particular and citizen reaction to presidential behavior more generally, aswell as on the cognitive mechanisms that facilitate motivated reasoning in candidate evaluation.
In: American journal of political science, Band 51, Heft 4, S. 940-956
ISSN: 1540-5907
This article examines the boundaries of motivated reasoning in legal decision making. We propose a model of attitudinal influence involving analogical perception. Attitudes influence judgments by affecting the perceived similarity between a target case and cases cited as precedent. Bias should be most apparent in judging similarity when cases are moderately similar on objective dimensions. We conducted two experiments: the first with undergraduates, the second with undergraduates and law students. Participants in each experiment read a mock newspaper article that described a "target case" involving unlawful discrimination. Embedded in the article was a description of a "source case" cited as legal precedent. Participants in both studies were more likely to find source cases with outcomes that supported their policy views in the target dispute as analogous to that litigation. Commensurate with our theory, there was evidence in both experiments that motivated perceptions were most apparent where cases were moderately similar on objective dimensions. Although there were differences in the way lay and law student participants viewed cases, legal training did not appear to attenuate motivated perceptions.
In: American journal of political science: AJPS, Band 51, Heft 4, S. 940-956
ISSN: 0092-5853
SSRN
Working paper
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 28, Heft 6, S. 719-746
ISSN: 1467-9221
Research in political psychology has shown the importance of motivated reasoning as a prism through which individuals view the political world. From this we develop the hypothesis that, with strong positive beliefs firmly in place, partisan groups ignore or discount information about the performance of political figures they like. We then speculate about how this tendency should manifest itself in presidential approval ratings and test our hypotheses using monthly presidential approval data disaggregated by party identification for the 1955–2005 period. Our results show that partisan groups generally do reward and punish presidents for economic performance, but only those presidents of the opposite party. We also develop a model of presidential approval for self‐identified Independents and, finally, a model of the partisan gap, the difference in approval between Democrat and Republican identifiers.
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 21, Heft 1, S. 135
ISSN: 0162-895X
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 28, Heft 6, S. 719-746
ISSN: 0162-895X
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 21, Heft 1, S. 135-160
ISSN: 0162-895X
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 64, Heft 4, S. 1021-1044
ISSN: 0022-3816
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 64, Heft 4, S. 1021-1044
ISSN: 1468-2508
In: Foreign policy analysis, Band 2, Heft 3, S. 201-222
ISSN: 1743-8594
SSRN
Working paper
SSRN
Working paper
In: Constitutionalism and democracy
Outlining a theory of motivated cognition in legal decision making -- A motivated reasoning approach to the commerce clause interpretation of the Rehnquist court -- Seeing what they want? : analogical perceptions in discrimination disputes / with Thomas E. Nelson -- Reasoning on the threshold : testing the separability of preferences in legal decision making -- Justifying outcomes? : how legal decision makers explain threshold decisions -- Motivated reasoning as an empirical framework : finding our way back to context