Political Behavior

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 235–262 | Cite as

The Influence of Partisan Motivated Reasoning on Public Opinion

Original Paper

Abstract

Political parties play a vital role in democracies by linking citizens to their representatives. Nonetheless, a longstanding concern is that partisan identification slants decision-making. Citizens may support (oppose) policies that they would otherwise oppose (support) in the absence of an endorsement from a political party—this is due in large part to what is called partisan motivated reasoning where individuals interpret information through the lens of their party commitment. We explore partisan motivated reasoning in a survey experiment focusing on support for an energy law. We identify two politically relevant factors that condition partisan motivated reasoning: (1) an explicit inducement to form an “accurate” opinion, and (2) cross-partisan, but not consensus, bipartisan support for the law. We further provide evidence of how partisan motivated reasoning works psychologically and affects opinion strength. We conclude by discussing the implications of our results for understanding opinion formation and the overall quality of citizens’ opinions.

Keywords

Motivated reasoning Parties Partisan trust Experiment 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We thank Aries Arugay, Kevin Levay, Julia Valdes, and especially Josh Robison for research assistance. We also are grateful to Matt Baum and Sean Richey for insightful comments and the Initiative for Sustainability and Energy at Northwestern (ISEN) for research funding.

References

  1. Arceneaux, K. (2008). Can partisan cues diminish democratic accountability? Political Behavior, 30(2), 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkeson, L. R., & Maestas, C. D. (2012). Catastrophic politics: How extraordinary events redefine perceptions of government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum, M. A., & Groeling, T. (2009). Shot by the messenger: Partisan cues and public opinion regarding national security and war. Political Behavior, 31(2), 157–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blalock, H. M., Jr. (1979). Social Statistics (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Boiney, L. G., Kennedy, J., & Nye, P. (1997). Instrumental bias in motivated reasoning: More when more is needed. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 72(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bolsen, T., & Cook, F. L. (2008). Public opinion on energy policy, 1974–2006. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(2), 364–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolsen, T., & Leeper, T.J. (Forthcoming). Self-interest and attention to news among issue publics. Political Communication.Google Scholar
  8. Brader, T. (2006). Campaigning for hearts and minds: How emotional appeals in political ads work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Bullock, J. G. (2011). Elite influence on public opinion in an informed electorate. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 496–515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bullock, J. G., Gerber, A. S., Hill, S. J., & Huber, G. A. (2013). Partisan bias in factual beliefs about politics. Working Paper.Google Scholar
  11. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., & Stokes, D. E. (1960). The American voter. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Chang, L., & Krosnick, J. A. (2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 73(4), 641–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing public opinion in competitive democracies. American Political Science Review, 101(4), 637–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Chugh, D. (2004). Societal and managerial implications of implicit social cognition: Why milliseconds matter. Social Justice Research, 17(2), 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Clarke, H. D., & Stewart, M. C. (1998). The decline of parties in the minds of citizens. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 357–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cohen, G. L. (2003). Party over policy: The dominating impact of group influence on political beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 808–822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cooper, J., & Young, G. (1997). Partisanship, bipartisanship, and cross partisanship in Congress since the New Deal. In L. C. Dodd & B. I. Oppenheimer (Eds.), Congress reconsidered (pp. 390–420). Washington D.C.: CQ Press.Google Scholar
  18. Creyer, E. H., Bettman, J. R., & Payne, J. W. (1990). The impact of accuracy and effort feedback and goals on adaptive decision behavior. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 3(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dancey, L., & Goren, P. (2010). Party identification, issue attitudes, and the dynamics of political debate. American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 686–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dennis, J. (1992). Political independence in America, III: In search of closet partisans. Political Behavior, 14(3), 261–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of political action in a democracy. Journal of Political Economy, 65(2), 135–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Druckman, J. N. (2001). The implications of framing effects for citizen competence. Political Behavior, 23(3), 225–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Druckman, J. N. (2012). The politics of motivation. Critical Review, 24(2), 199–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Druckman, J. N., & Bolsen, T. (2011). Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions about emergent technologies. Journal of Communication, 61(4), 659–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Druckman, J. N., Fein, J., & Leeper, T. J. (2012). A source of bias in public opinion stability. American Political Science Review, 106(2), 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Druckman, J. N., Kifer, M. J., & Parkin, M. (2009a). Campaign communications in U.S. congressional elections. American Political Science Review, 103, 343–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Druckman, J. N., Kuklinski, J. H., & Sigelman, L. (2009b). The unmet potential of interdisciplinary research: Political psychological approaches to voting and public opinion. Political Behavior, 31, 485–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Druckman, J. N., & Leeper, T. (2012). Is public opinion stable? Resolving the micro-macro disconnect in studies of public opinion. Daedalus, 141, 50–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Druckman, J. N., & Nelson, K. R. (2003). Framing and deliberation: How citizens’ conversations limit elite influence. American Journal of Political Science, 47(4), 729–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Druckman, J. N., Peterson, E., & Slothuus, R. (2013). How elite partisan polarization affects public opinion formation. American Political Science Review, 107(1), 57–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Attitudes: Foundations, functions, and consequences. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology (pp. 139–160). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  32. Gerber, A. S., Huber, G. A., & Washington, E. (2010). Party affiliation, partisanship, and political beliefs: A field experiment. American Political Science Review, 104(4), 720–744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Green, D. P., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan hearts and minds. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Harbridge, L. (2013). Is bipartisanship dead? Strategic partisanship and agenda control in the House of Representatives. Unpublished Book Manuscript, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  35. Houston, D. A., & Fazio, R. H. (1989). Biased processing as a function of attitude accessibility: Making objective judgments subjectively. Social Cognition, 7(1), 51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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(3), 888–911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jerit, J. (2009). How predictive appeals shape policy opinions. American Journal of Political Science, 53(2), 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Kahan, D. M., Braman, D., Slovic, P., Gastil, J., & Cohen, G. (2009). Cultural cognition of the risks and benefits of nanotechnology. Nature Nanotechnology, 4, 87–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Keith, B. E., Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., Orr, E. A., Westlye, M. C., & Wolfinger, R. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  41. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Kunda, Z. (1999). Social cognition: Making sense of people. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  43. Lavine, H., Johnston, C., & Steenbergen, M. (2012). The ambivalent partisan: How critical loyalty promotes democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Levendusky, M. S. (2010). Clearer cues, more consistent voters. Political Behavior, 32(1), 111–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. D. McCubbins, & S. L. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of Reason (pp. 183–213). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Lord, C. G., Lepper, M. R., & Preston, E. (1984). Considering the opposite: A corrective strategy for social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47(6), 1231–1243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Magleby, D. B., Nelson, C. J., & Westlye, M. C. (2011). The myth of the independent voter revisited. In P. Sniderman & B. Highton (Eds.), Facing the challenge of democracy: Explorations in the analysis of public opinion and political participation (pp. 238–266). Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Malhotra, N., & Krosnick, J. A. (2007). The effect of survey mode and sampling on inferences about political attitudes and behavior: Comparing the 2000 and 2004 ANES to Internet surveys with nonprobability samples. Political Analysis, 15(3), 286–323.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Miller, J. M., & Krosnick, J. A. (2000). News media impact on the ingredients of presidential evaluations: Politically knowledgeable Citizens are guided by a trusted source. American Journal of Political Science, 44(2), 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Mulligan, K. J., Grant, T., Mockabee, S. T., & Monson, J. Q. (2003). Response latency methodology for survey research: Measurement and modeling strategies. Political Analysis, 11(3), 289–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Nicholson, S. P. (2012). Polarizing cues. American Journal of Political Science, 56(1), 52–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petersen, M. B., Skov, M., Serritzlew, S., & Ramsøy, T. (Forthcoming). Motivated reasoning and political parties: Evidence for increased processing in the face of party cues. Political Behavior.Google Scholar
  54. Petrocik, J. R. (1974). An analysis of intransitivities in the index of party identification. Political Methodology, 1, 31–47.Google Scholar
  55. Petrocik, J. R. (2009). Measuring party support: Leaners are not independents. Electoral Studies, 28(4), 562–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Prior, M., & Lupia, A. (2008). Money, time, and political knowledge: Distinguishing quick recall and political learning skills. American Journal of Political Science, 52(1), 169–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1021–1044.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people: A realist’s view of democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
  59. Sinclair, B. (2012). The social citizen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Slothuus, R., & de Vreese, C. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72(3), 630–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Smith, J. R., Terry, D. J., Crosier, T. R., & Duck, J. M. (2005). The importance of the relevance of the issue to the group in voting intentions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27(2), 163–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Tetlock, P. E. (1983). Accountability and complexity of thought. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Tetlock, P. E. (1986). A value pluralism model of ideological reasoning. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(4), 819–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(4), 632–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Visser, P. S., Bizer, G. Y., & Krosnick, J. A. (2006). Exploring the latent structure of strength related attitude attributes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 1–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toby Bolsen
    • 1
  • James N. Druckman
    • 2
  • Fay Lomax Cook
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Institute for Policy ResearchNorthwestern UniversityEvanstonUSA

Personalised recommendations