Suchergebnisse
Filter
449 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
SSRN
Observability Obstructs Motivated Reasoning in Autocracy
SSRN
The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm
In: Emerging Trends in Social & Behavioral Sciences, Forthcoming
SSRN
Asymmetric Motivated Reasoning in Investor Judgment
In: Review of Accounting Studies
SSRN
Working paper
Motivated reasoning, fast and slow
In: Behavioural public policy: BPP, Band 8, Heft 3, S. 617-632
ISSN: 2398-0648
AbstractAre people more likely to (mis)interpret information so that it aligns with their ideological identity when relying on feelings compared to when engaging in analytical thinking? Or is it the other way around: Does deliberation increase the propensity to (mis)interpret information to confirm existing political views? In a behavioral experiment, participants (n = 1207, Swedish sample) assessed numerical information concerning the effects of gender quotas and immigration either under time pressure or under no time pressure. To measure trait differences in cognitive sophistication, we also collected data on numeric ability. We found clear evidence of motivated reasoning when assessing both the effects of gender quotas on companies' financial results and the effect of refugee intake on crime rates. Subjects who prioritized equality over liberty on the labor market were 13 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that companies that used gender quotas when hiring made less profit. Subjects who classified themselves as 'Swedes' rather than 'World citizens' were 14 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that crime rates decreased following immigration. Time pressure did not affect the likelihood to engage in motivated reasoning, while subjects with higher numeric ability were less likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information concerning refugee intake, but more likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information regarding the effect of gender quotas. Together these results indicate that motivated reasoning is primarily driven by individual differences in analytical thinking at the trait level and not by situational factors such as time pressure, and that whether motivated reasoning is primarily driven by analysis or feelings depends on the topic at hand.
Motivated Reasoning and Democratic Accountability
In: American political science review, Band 116, Heft 2, S. 751-767
ISSN: 1537-5943
Does motivated reasoning harm democratic accountability? Substantial evidence from political behavior research indicates that voters have "directional motives" beyond accuracy, which is often taken as evidence that they are ill equipped to hold politicians accountable. We develop a model of electoral accountability with voters as motivated reasoners. Directional motives have two effects: (1) divergence—voters with different preferences hold different beliefs, and (2) desensitization—the relationship between incumbent performance and voter beliefs is weakened. While motivated reasoning does harm accountability, this is generally driven by desensitized voters rather than polarized partisans with politically motivated divergent beliefs. We also analyze the relationship between government performance and vote shares, showing that while motivated reasoning always weakens this relationship, we cannot infer that accountability is also harmed. Finally, we show that our model can be mapped to standard models in which voters are fully Bayesian but have different preferences or information.
Motivated Reasoning in Outcome‐Bias Effects
In: Journal of consumer research: JCR ; an interdisciplinary journal, Band 31, Heft 4, S. 798-805
ISSN: 1537-5277
The case for partisan motivated reasoning
In: Synthese: an international journal for epistemology, methodology and philosophy of science, Band 202, Heft 3
ISSN: 1573-0964
AbstractA large body of research in political science claims that the way in which democratic citizens think about politics is motivationally biased by partisanship. Numerous critics argue that the evidence for this claim is better explained by theories in which party allegiances influence political cognition without motivating citizens to embrace biased beliefs. This article has three aims. First, I clarify this criticism, explain why common responses to it are unsuccessful, and argue that to make progress on this debate we need a more developed theory of the connections between group attachments and motivated reasoning. Second, I develop such a theory. Drawing on research on coalitional psychology and the social functions of beliefs, I argue that partisanship unconsciously biases cognition by generating motivations to advocate for party interests, which transform individuals into partisan press secretaries. Finally, I argue that this theory offers a superior explanation of a wide range of relevant findings than purely non-motivational theories of political cognition.
Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion Perception
In: The public opinion quarterly: POQ, Band 75, Heft 3, S. 504-532
ISSN: 1537-5331
Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion Perception
In: Public opinion quarterly: journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, Band 75, Heft 3, S. 504-504
ISSN: 0033-362X
Motivated Reasoning, Information Avoidance, and Default Bias
In: MPI Collective Goods Discussion Paper, No. 2022/3
SSRN
Numbers, Motivated Reasoning, and Empirical Legal Scholarship
In: Buffalo Law Review Vol. 63, No. 385
SSRN
Motivated Reasoning: A Depth‐Of‐Processing Perspective
In: Journal of consumer research: JCR ; an interdisciplinary journal, Band 26, Heft 4, S. 358-371
ISSN: 1537-5277
Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies
In: APSA 2009 Toronto Meeting Paper
SSRN
Working paper