Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Table of Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- Preface -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Part 1: The Case for Investigating Motivated Reasoning in Legal Decision Making -- Chapter One: Outlining a Theory of Motivated Cognition in Legal Decision Making -- Chapter Two: A Motivated Reasoning Approach to the Commerce Clause Interpretation of the Rehnquist Court -- Part 2: Testing the Mechanisms -- Chapter Three: Seeing What They Want? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes (with Thomas E. Nelson) -- Chapter Four: Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making -- Chapter Five: Justifying Outcomes? How Legal Decision Makers Explain Threshold Decisions -- Chapter Six: Motivated Reasoning as an Empirical Framework: Finding Our Way Back to Context -- Appenddixes -- A-1: Materials Related to Experiments on Analogical Perception -- A-2: Supplemental Regression Analyses for Experiments on Analogical Perception -- B: Materials Relating to Experiment Testing the Separability of Preferences -- Notes -- References -- Index.

Intro -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- 1 Introduction -- 2 Is Reasoning Useful? -- 2.1 Outreach Publications -- 2.1.1 Trends in Cognitive Sciences -- 2.1.2 Psychological Science in the Public Interest -- 2.2 Policymaking -- 2.2.1 The Credibility Problem -- 2.2.2 Behaviorally Informed Policies -- 2.3 Making Reasoning Relevant -- 2.3.1 A New Language -- 2.3.2 A New Toolbox -- References -- 3 What Is Special About Human Reasoning? -- 3.1 Protoreasoning Among Nonhuman Primates -- 3.1.1 Causality -- 3.1.2 Logic -- 3.1.3 Comparative Ontogeny -- 3.2 Our Uniquely Cooperative Mind -- 3.2.1 Coordination -- 3.2.2 Division of Labor -- 3.2.3 Cumulative Culture -- 3.3 Our Special Powers of Reasoning -- 3.3.1 More Than Social Context -- 3.3.2 More Than (One) Social Function -- References -- 4 Decisions -- 4.1 The Rationality Assumption -- 4.2 Rational Doers -- 4.2.1 The Naïve Utility Calculus Model -- 4.2.2 Reasoning About What People Do -- 4.3 Rational Talkers -- 4.3.1 The Rational Speech Act Model -- 4.3.2 Reasoning About What People Say -- 4.4 Do We Intuit Utility Maximization? -- 4.4.1 Intuitions About Doers -- 4.4.2 Intuitions About Talkers -- References -- 5 Morality -- 5.1 Moral Character and Its Components -- 5.2 Other-Regarding Preferences -- 5.2.1 Inferences from Behavior -- 5.2.2 Inferences from Processing -- 5.3 Doing Culture Right -- 5.3.1 The Impure and the Bizarre -- 5.3.2 From Conformity to Morality -- References -- 6 Delusions -- 6.1 Motivated Beliefs -- 6.1.1 Feeling and Doing Better -- 6.1.2 Cooperation-Motivated Beliefs -- 6.2 Self-Deluded Reasoning -- 6.2.1 Biased Evaluations -- 6.2.2 Conjuring Premises -- 6.3 Reasoning About Delusions -- 6.3.1 How Hard Should It Be to Detect Self-Deceivers? -- 6.3.2 What Counts as Detecting Self-Deceivers? -- References -- 7 Democracy -- 7.1 Reasoning About Issues

Introduction -- Learning -- Three distinctions -- Sex Ratios: The gold standard for using game theory -- Hawk-Dove and Rights -- Costly Signaling and Aesthetics -- Buried Signals and Modesty -- Evidence Games and Spin -- Motivated Reasoning -- The repeated Prisoner's Dilemma and Altruism -- Norms -- Categorical Norms -- Higher-Order Beliefs -- Subgame Perfection and Justice -- What's Next?

The nature of political arguments -- Applying the three-axes model -- Fast political thinking and simple moral frames -- Beyond your dominant heuristic -- Your mind on politics: motivated reasoning -- Further thoughts on human nature -- The state of closure: discrediting the opponent -- The ideological turing test -- I'm reasonable, they're not -- Using all three languages: examples -- Conclusion -- Appendix: testing the three-axes model

The nature of political arguments -- Applying the three-axes model -- Fast political thinking and simple moral frames -- Beyond your dominant heuristic -- Your mind on politics: motivated reasoning -- Further thoughts on human nature -- The state of closure: discrediting the opponent -- The ideological turing test -- I'm reasonable, they're not -- Using all three languages: examples -- Donald Trump and the three-axes model - Conclusion -- Appendix: testing the three-axes model.

Denial can stand in the way of individual well-being, and ideological denialism can stand in the way of good public policy. This text is a wide-ranging examination of denial and denialism. It offers a readable overview of the social psychology of denial, and examines the role of ideological denialism in conflicts over public policy, politics, and culture. Chapters focus on our philosophical and scientific understanding of denial, denial of scientific consensus, denialism in political economy, and denialism in religious belief. An afterword examines proposals for improving science communication in light of findings about motivated reasoning and denial.

Intro -- CONTENTS -- INTRODUCTION -- 1. EXPERIMENTS IN POLITICAL SCIENCE -- 1.1 EXPERIMENTAL POLITICAL SCIENCE -- 1.2 INTERNAL VALIDITY -- 1.3 EXTERNAL VALIDITY -- 1.4 THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL VALIDITY -- 2. INFORMATION PROCESSING AND HEURISTICS -- 2.1 LIMITS OF HUMAN COGNITION -- 2.2 SOURCE CUES AND POLITICAL REASONING -- 3. EMOTION IN POLITICS AND AFFECTIVE CUES -- 3.1 AFFECT AND COGNITION -- 3.2 AFFECTIVE POLITICS AND THE THEORY OF AFFECTIVE INTELLIGENCE -- 3.3 AUTOMATICITY OF AFFECT AND JOHN Q. PUBLIC MODEL -- 4. AFFECTIVE SOURCE CUES IN SINGLE PARTY CUE EXPERIMENTS -- 4.1 AFFECTIVE CUES, NEGATIVITY BIAS, AND LEADER EFFECT -- 4.2 SOURCE CUES AND PRIOR POLICY ATTITUDES -- 4.3 SUMMARY -- 5. CUE-TAKING: HEURISTICAL THINKING OR MOTIVATED REASONING? -- 5.1 MOTIVATED POLITICAL REASONING -- 5.2 AFFECTIVE CUES OF POLICY SOURCEAND POLICY TARGET -- 5.3 SUMMARY -- 6. CONCLUSION -- 7. APPENDICES -- 7.1 APPENDIX A Summary of the Experimental Procedures of Experiment 1 (Reported in Chapter 4) -- 7.2 APPENDIX B Summary of the Experimental Procedures of Experiment 2 (Reported in Chapters 4 and 5) -- 7.3 APPENDIX C Summary of the Experimental Procedures of Experiment 3 (Reported in Chapter 5) -- 7.4 APPENDIX D The Multiparty System of the Czech Republic -- 8. REFERENCES -- LIST OF TABLES -- LIST OF FIGURES -- INDEX.

Chapter 1:Introduction – Risk governance dilemmas and democratization: public trust, risk perception and public participation in risk decision-making -- Part I: Motivated reasoning, science and values: rethinking risk perception and public participation in risk governance -- Chapter 2: Motivated reasoning and risk governance: what risk scholars and practitioners need to know -- Chapter 3: Science and values: the pervasive entanglement -- Chapter 4: The BIAS FREE Framework: A tool for science/technology and society education to increase science and risk literacy -- Part II: Public trust, risk perception and public participation: lessons from the real worlds of risk governance Energy -- Chapter 5: Getting it Right? The Site Selection Process for Canada's High-Level Nuclear Waste -- Chapter 6: Hydraulic fracturing in New Brunswick: trust, deliberation and risk decision-making. Chapter 7: Carbon capture, utilization and storage: public confidence in risk decision-making -- Chapter 8: Public Inclusion and Responsiveness in Governance of Genetically Engineered Animals -- Chapter 9: Decision-making about Newborn screening panels in Canada: risk management and public participation -- Chapter 10: Balancing shared decision-making with population-based recommendations: a policy perspective of PSA testing and mammography screening -- Chapter 11: Public Engagement on Childhood Vaccination: Democratizing policy decision-making through public deliberation -- Chapter 12: Narratives and the Water Fluoridation Controversy -- Chapter 13: Exploring the Role of Information Sources in Vaccine Decision-Making among Four Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Communities in the U.S -- Chapter 14: Opportunities and Perils of Public Consultation in the creation of COVID-19 vaccine priority groups.

It is a striking—yet all too familiar—fact about human beings that our belief-forming processes can be so distorted by fears, desires, and prejudices that an otherwise sensible person may sincerely uphold false claims about the world in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. When we describe someone as being "in denial," we mean that he or she is personally, emotionally threatened by some situation—and consequently has failed to assess the situation properly according to the evidence. People in denial engage in motivated reasoning about their situation: They (sincerely) argue and interpret evidence in light of a preestablished conclusion. One significant type of reason-distorting emotional threat is a threat to one's ideological worldview. When group interests, creeds, or dogmas are threatened by unwelcome factual information, biased thinking becomes ideological denialism. (One critical example of such denialism is the widespread denial of settled climate science.) Denial can stand in the way of individual well-being, and ideological denialism can stand in the way of good public policy. This book is a wide-ranging examination of denial and denialism. It offers a readable overview of the social psychology of denial, and examines the role of ideological denialism in conflicts over public policy, politics, and culture. Chapters focus on our philosophical and scientific understanding of denial, denial of scientific consensus, denialism in political economy, and denialism in religious belief. An afterword examines proposals for improving science communication in light of findings about motivated reasoning and denial.

Living in interesting times : how can behavioral political science help us understand the current political moment? -- The rational actor model of political decision making -- The limits of human processing : bounded rationality, heuristics & biases -- What you say may matter less than how you say it : the role of framing in political communication effects -- The limitations of the unitary actor model of government -- Feeling politics : how emotions impact attitudes and behavior -- The origins of political preferences : material self-interest or personality, moral values and group attitudes? -- Better to be right or to belong? Motivated reasoning in politics -- Looking forward : how behavioral political science can help policymakers.

Political behavior is the result of innumerable unnoticed forces and conscious deliberation is often a rationalization of automatically triggered feelings and thoughts. Citizens are very sensitive to environmental contextual factors such as the title 'President' preceding 'Obama' in a newspaper headline, upbeat music or patriotic symbols accompanying a campaign ad, or question wording and order in a survey, all of which have their greatest influence when citizens are unaware. This book develops and tests a dual-process theory of political beliefs, attitudes and behavior, claiming that all thinking, feeling, reasoning and doing have an automatic component as well as a conscious deliberative component. The authors are especially interested in the impact of automatic feelings on political judgments and evaluations. This research is based on laboratory experiments, which allow the testing of five basic hypotheses: hot cognition, automaticity, affect transfer, affect contagion and motivated reasoning

"We argue that ideology lacks meaning in the United States: what is conservative and liberal is that which Republicans and Democrats have labeled "conservative," and "liberal." This premise is central to how we understand the role of the political parties in American political behavior and why political party leaders are so essential to crafting the beliefs of partisans in the electorate. Second, we trace how the parties have evolved on issues over time, highlighting the lack of ideological consistency in the party platforms. We then explain how negative partisanship and partisan-motivated reasoning create a situation where partisans are psychologically rewarded for adopting the party's position and being receptive to information from their own party while blocking information from other sources"--

A festschrift for a friend / Howard Lavine and Charles S. Taber -- Conversations about the rationalizing voter / Charles S. Taber -- Inside the black box with Milt, and other lessons learned / Kathleen M. McGraw -- Citizens, politics, and process : the extensive reach of Milton Lodge / Robert Huckfeldt -- The paradox of political knowledge / Jennifer Jerit and Caitlin Davies -- Political expertise and open-minded cognition / Victor Ottati, Chase Wilson, Erika Price, and Nathanael Sumaktoyo -- Belief change : a Bayesian perspective / Marco R. Steenbergen and Howard Lavine -- Motivated responses to political communications : framing, party cues, and science information / James N. Druckman, Thomas J. Leeper, and Rune Slothuus -- The effects of first impressions on subsequent information search and evaluation / David P. Redlawsk and Douglas Pierce -- Racially motivated reasoning / Stanley Feldman and Leonie Huddy -- All in the eye of the beholder : asymmetry in ideological accountability / Gaurav Sood and Shanto Iyengar -- (working toward) affective transfer in the real world / Tessa M. Ditonto and Richard R. Lau

Introduction to political hostility -- A primer on political disagreement -- Where opinions come from -- Motivated reasoning : how we think and reason about politics -- Consider the source: news media and political hostility -- Can we talk? : how to engage in civil discussions about politics -- Taxing and spending -- Should Medicare be expanded to cover all Americans? -- Should college tuition be free for all Americans? -- Should Congress increase funding for the military? -- Social policy; chapter 9: should the federal government legalize marijuana? -- Should universities encourage affirmative action policies? -- Should illegal immigrants be granted work visas? -- Should students be allowed to carry guns on college campuses? -- Government reforms -- Should Congress have term limits? -- Should U.S. Supreme Court justices be elected? -- Should voting be mandatory in national elections? -- Should a national popular vote replace the electoral college?

Introduction to political hostility -- A primer on political disagreement -- Where opinions come from -- Motivated reasoning : how we think and reason about politics -- Consider the source: news media and political hostility -- Can we talk? : how to engage in civil discussions about politics -- Taxing and spending -- Should Medicare be expanded to cover all Americans? -- Should college tuition be free for all Americans? -- Should Congress increase funding for the military? -- Social policy; chapter 9: should the federal government legalize marijuana? -- Should universities encourage affirmative action policies? -- Should illegal immigrants be granted work visas? -- Should students be allowed to carry guns on college campuses? -- Government reforms -- Should Congress have term limits? -- Should U.S. Supreme Court justices be elected? -- Should voting be mandatory in national elections? -- Should a national popular vote replace the electoral college?