Political Behavior

, Volume 35, Issue 4, pp 831–854 | Cite as

Motivated Reasoning and Political Parties: Evidence for Increased Processing in the Face of Party Cues

Original Paper

Abstract

Extant research in political science has demonstrated that citizens’ opinions on policies are influenced by their attachment to the party sponsoring them. At the same time, little evidence exists illuminating the psychological processes through which such party cues are filtered. From the psychological literature on source cues, we derive two possible hypotheses: (1) party cues activate heuristic processing aimed at minimizing the processing effort during opinion formation, and (2) party cues activate group motivational processes that compel citizens to support the position of their party. As part of the latter processes, the presence of party cues would make individuals engage in effortful motivated reasoning to produce arguments for the correctness of their party’s position. Following psychological research, we use response latency to measure processing effort and, in support of the motivated reasoning hypothesis, demonstrate that across student and nationally representative samples, the presence of party cues increases processing effort.

Keywords

Public opinion Political parties Party cues Motivated reasoning Heuristic processing 

Supplementary material

11109_2012_9213_MOESM1_ESM.docx (23 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 24 kb)

References

  1. Bassili, J. N. (1993). Response latency versus certainty as indexes of the strength of voting intentions in a Cati survey. The Public Opinion Quarterly, 57, 54–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bassili, J. N. (1995). On the psychological reality of party identification: Evidence from the accessibility of voting intentions and of partisan feelings. Political Behavior, 17, 339–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105, 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burdein, I., Lodge, M., & Taber, C. (2006). Experiments on the automaticity of political beliefs and attitudes. Political Psychology, 7, 359–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. (1960). The American voter. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eagly, A. H., & Chaiken, S. (1993). The psychology of attitudes. Belmont: Wardsworth Group/Thomson Learning.Google Scholar
  8. Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark (Eds.), Research methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74–97). Sage, Thousand Oaks: Review of Personality and Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  9. Goren, P. (2005). Party identification and core political values. American Journal of Political Science, 49, 881–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Greene, S. (1999). Understanding party identification: A social identity approach. Political Psychology, 20, 393–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Greitemeyer, T., Fischer, P., Frey, D., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2009). Biased assimilation: The role of source position. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 22–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Habyarimana, J., Humphreys, M., Posner, D. N., & Weinstein, J. M. (2007). Why does ethnic diversity undermine public goods provision? American Political Science Review, 101, 709–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hobolt, S. B. (2007). Taking cues on Europe? Voter competence and party endorsements in referendums on European integration. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 151–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Huckfeldt, R., Levine, J., Morgan, W., & Sprague, J. (1999). Accessibility and the political utility of partisan and ideological orientations. American Journal of Political Science, 43, 888–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Huckfeldt, R., Mondak, J. J., Craw, M., & Mendez, J. M. (2005). Making sense of candidates: Partisanship, ideology, and issues as guides to judgment. Cognitive Brain Research, 23, 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Huckfeldt, R., & Sprague, J. (2000). Political consequences of inconsistency: The accessibility and stability of abortion attitudes. Political Psychology, 21, 57–79 (Special issue: Response latency measurement in telephone surveys).Google Scholar
  18. Jennings, K. M., & Niemi, R. G. (1974). The political character of adolescence. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Jennings, K. M., & Niemi, R. G. (1981). Generations and politics: A panel study of young adults and their parents. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kam, C. D. (2005). Who toes the party line? Cues, values, and individual differences. Political Behavior, 27, 163–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Koch, J. W. (2001). When parties and candidates collide: Citizen perception of house candidates’ positions on abortion. Public Opinion Quarterly, 65, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivating reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kurzban, R., Tooby, J., & Cosmides, L. (2001). Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98, 15387–15392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2001). Advantages and disadvantages of cognitive heuristics in political decision making. American Journal of Political Science, 45, 951–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lau, R. R., & Redlawsk, D. P. (2006). How voters decide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Layman, G. C., & Carsey, T. M. (1998). Why do party activists convert? An analysis of individual-level change on the abortion issue. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 723–749.Google Scholar
  27. Lebo, M. J., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28, 719–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Malhotra, N., & Kuo, A. G. (2009). Emotions as moderators of information cue use. American Politics Research, 37, 301–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Malhotra, N., & Margalit, Y. (2010). Short-term communication effects or longstanding dispositions? The public’s response to the financial crisis of 2008. Journal of Politics, 72, 852–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. McDermott, R. (2007). Cognitive neuroscience and politics: Next steps. In R. Neumann, G. Marcus, A. Crigler, & M. MacKuen (Eds.), The affect effect (pp. 375–397). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mondak, J. J. (1993). Source cues and policy approval: The cognitive dynamics of public support for the Reagan agenda. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 186–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulligan, K., Grant, T. J., Mockabee, S. T., & Monson, J. Q. (2003). Response latency methodology for survey research: Measurement and modelling strategies. Political Analysis, 11, 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Payne, J. W., Bettman, J. R., & Johnson, E. (1990). The adaptive decision maker: Effort and accuracy in choice. In R. M. Hogarth (Ed.), Insights in decision making (pp. 129–153). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Petersen, M. B. (2012). Social welfare as small-scale help: Evolutionary psychology and the deservingness heuristic. American Journal of Political Science, 56, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2010). Political parties and value consistency in public opinion formation. Public Opinion Quarterly, 74, 530–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Petersen, M. B., Slothuus, R., Stubager, R., & Togeby, L. (2011). Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research, 50, 24–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Petersen, M. B., Sznycer, D., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (2012). Who deserves help? Evolutionary psychology, social emotions and public opinion about welfare. Political Psychology, 33, 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1981). Attitudes and persuasion: Classic and contemporary approaches. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown.Google Scholar
  40. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Goldman, R. (1981). Personal involvement as a determinant of argument-based persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 134–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pietraszewski, D., Curry, O., Petersen, M. B., Cosmides, L. & Tooby, J. (2012). Politics erases race but not sex: Evidence that signals of political party support engage coalitional psychology. Working paper.Google Scholar
  42. Rahn, W. M. (1993). The role of partisan stereotypes in information processing about political candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37, 472–496.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Redlawsk, D. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision-making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044.Google Scholar
  44. Rosema, M. (2006). Partisanship, candidate evaluations, and prospective voting. Electoral Studies, 25, 467–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Schaffner, B. F., & Streb, M. J. (2002). The partisan heuristic in low information elections. Public Opinion Quarterly, 66, 559–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Squire, P., & Smith, E. R. A. N. (1988). The effect of partisan information on voters in nonpartisan elections. The Journal of Politics, 50, 169–179.Google Scholar
  48. Stanton, S. J., Beehner, J. C., Saini, E. K., Kuhn, C. M., & LaBar, K. S. (2009). Dominance, politics, and physiology: Voters’ testosterone changes on the night of the 2008 United States Presidential Election. PLoS ONE, 4, e7543. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0007543.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. van Harreveld, F., van der Pligt, J., de Vries, N. K., Wenneker, C., & Verhue, D. (2004). Ambivalence and information integration in attitudinal judgment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Westen, D., Blagov, P. S., Harenski, K., Kilts, C., & Hamann, S. (2006). Neural bases of motivated reasoning: An FMRI study of emotional constraints on partisan political judgment in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1947–1958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yamagishi, T., & Mifune, N. (2008). Does shared group membership promote altruism? Fear, greed, and reputation. Rationality and Society, 20, 5–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zaller, J. R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political Science and GovernmentAarhus UniversityAarhusDenmark
  2. 2.Danish Research Centre for Magnetic ResonanceCopenhagen University Hospital HvidovreHvidovre Denmark
  3. 3.Decision Neuroscience Research Group, Department of MarketingCopenhagen Business SchoolFrederiksbergDenmark

Personalised recommendations