Political Behavior

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 137–155 | Cite as

The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments

Original Paper

Abstract

We report the results of an experiment designed to replicate and extend recent findings on motivated political reasoning. In particular, we are interested in disconfirmation biases—the tendency to counter-argue or discount information with which one disagrees—in the processing of political arguments on policy issues. Our experiment examines 8 issues, including some of local relevance and some of national relevance, and manipulates the presentation format of the policy arguments. We find strong support for our basic disconfirmation hypothesis: people seem unable to ignore their prior beliefs when processing arguments or evidence. We also find that this bias is moderated by political sophistication and strength of prior attitude. We do not find, however, that argument type matters, suggesting that motivated biases are quite robust to changes in argument format. Finally, we find strong support for the polarization of attitudes as a consequence of biased processing.

Keywords

Motivated reasoning Bayes’ rule Political beliefs Public opinion Attitude polarization Political information processing 

References

  1. Abelson, R. P., & Prentice, D. A. (1989). Beliefs as possessions: A functional perspective. In A. R. Pratkanis, S. J. Breckler & A. G. Greenwald (Eds.), Attitude structure and function (pp. 361–381). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  2. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. doi:10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ditto, P. H., & Lopez, D. F. (1992). Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(4), 568–584. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.63.4.568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ditto, P. H., Scepansky, J. A., Munro, G. D., Apanovitch, A. M., & Lockhart, L. K. (1998). Motivated sensitivity to preference-inconsistent information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 53–69. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Edwards, K., & Smith, E. E. (1996). A disconfirmation bias in the evaluation of arguments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 5–24. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.1.5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Evans, J. S. B. T., & Over, D. E. (1996). Rationality and reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  7. Fischhoff, B., & Beyth-Marom, R. (1983). Hypothesis evaluation from a Bayesian perspective. Psychological Review, 90, 239–260. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.90.3.239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gerber, A., & Green, D. P. (1998). Rational learning and partisan attitudes. American Journal of Political Science, 42(3), 794–818. doi:10.2307/2991730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kunda, Z. (1990). The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Lebo, M., & Cassino, D. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning. Political Psychology, 28, 6. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2007.00601.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In A. Lupia, M. McCubbins & S. Popkin (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 183–213). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2005). Implicit affect for political candidates, parties, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26(3), 455–482. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2005.00426.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Lord, C., Ross, M., & Lepper, M. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effects of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27, 2098–2109. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Matheson, K., & Dursun, S. (2001). Social identity precursors to the hostile media phenomenon: Partisan perceptions of coverage of the Bosnian conflict. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 4, 117–126. doi:10.1177/1368430201004002003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meffert, M., Chung, S., Joiner, A. J., Waks, L., & Garst, J. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. The Journal of Communication, 56(1), 27–51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00003.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petty, R. E., & Krosnick, J. (Eds.). (1995). Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Petty, R. E., & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (pp. 323–390). Boston: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  18. Redlawsk, D. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration: Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. The Journal of Politics, 64, 1021–1044. doi:10.1111/1468-2508.00161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Rudolph, T. J. (2006). Triangulating political responsibility: The motivated formation of responsibility judgments. Political Psychology, 27(1), 99–122. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2006.00451.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Taber, C. S. (2003). Information processing and public opinion. In D. O. Sears, L. Huddy & R. Jervis (Eds.), The handbook of political psychology (pp. 433–476). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755–769. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00214.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Taber, C. S., Lodge, M., & Glather, J. (2001). The motivated construction of political judgments. In J. Kuklinski (Ed.), Citizens and politics: Perspectives from political psychology (pp. 198–226). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceStony Brook UniversityStony Brook USA
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceUtah State University LoganUSA
  3. 3.Department of Political ScienceGrand Valley State UniversityAllendale USA

Personalised recommendations