Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

A large body of work shows that reasoning motivated by partisan cues and prior attitudes leads to unreflective decisions and disparities in empirical beliefs across groups. Surprisingly little research, however, has tested the limits of motivated reasoning. We argue that the publicly circulated findings of deliberative minipublics can spark a more reflective motivation in voters when these bodies provide policy-relevant factual information. To test that proposition, we conducted a survey experiment using information generated by one such minipublic during an election. Results showed that exposure to the minipublic's findings improved the accuracy of voters' empirical beliefs regarding a ballot proposition on the regulation of genetically modified seeds. This treatment effect transcended voters' partisan identities and prior environmental attitudes. In some instances, the respondents showing the greatest knowledge gains were those who a directional motivated-reasoning account would have expected to resist the treatment most effectively, owing to party identity or prior attitudes.     

On the Independent Roles of Cognitive & Political Sophistication: Variation Across Attitudinal Objects

People are motivated to maintain consistency between importantly held identities, preferences, and judgments. In political contexts, motivated reasoning can help explain a wide range of political phenomena, including extremism, polarization, and misperceptions. However, recent findings in psychology have challenged this account. These perspectives emphasize the role of cognitive sophistication (e.g., analytical reasoning, numerical literacy) in political attitudes, but differ in terms of whether it is expected to attenuate or exacerbate politically motivated reasoning and belief in conspiracy theories. Yet prior investigations have not examined the relative and independent effects of both political and cognitive sophistication. Using data from two samples, including one sampled to approximate representativeness in the U.S., we demonstrate that both types of sophistication have independent and (at times) countervailing effects on belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories and other political attitudes. Our results are critical for theories of cognitive sophistication, political cognition, and attitudes, and the psychology of conspiracy theories.     

Personalizing politics: a congruency model of political preference

Modern politics become personalized as individual characteristics of voters and candidates assume greater importance in political discourse. Although personalities of candidates capture center stage and become the focus of voters' preferences, individual characteristics of voters, such as their traits and values, become decisive for political choice. The authors' findings reveal that people vote for candidates whose personality traits are in accordance with the ideology of their preferred political party. They also select politicians whose traits match their own traits. Moreover, voters' traits match their own values. The authors outline a congruency model of political preference that highlights the interacting congruencies among voters' self-reported traits and values, voters' perceptions of leaders' personalities, politicians' self-reported traits, and programs of favored political coalitions.     

Personality Profiles and Political Parties

This paper explores relationships between basic personality profiles of voters and their political party preferences. The Italian political system has moved recently from previously extreme, ideologically distinctive parties to form complex coalitions varying around more centrist orientations. Significant evidence was found for the utility of the Five-Factor Model of Personality in distinguishing between voters' expressed preferences, even given this greater subtlety in proposed values and agendas. More than 2,000 Italian voters who self-identified as having voted for new center-left or center-right political coalitions differed systematically in predicted directions on several personality dimensions measured by the Big Five Questionnaire. In the context of the model, center-right voters displayed more Energy and slightly more Conscientiousness than center-left voters, whose dominant personality characteristics were Agreeableness (Friendliness) and Openness; Emotional Stability was unrelated to either group. This relationship between individual differences in personality and political preferences was not influenced by the demographic variables of voters' gender, age, or education. Thus, personality dimensions proved to be stronger predictors of political preference than any of these standard predictor variables. Implications are discussed regarding links among personality, persuasion, power, and politics.     

Endorsements as Voting Cues: Heuristic and Systematic Processing in Initiative Elections1

This project explores how organizational endorsements influence voter attitudes during initiative elections. Building on the heuristic‐systematic model (Chaiken, 1980; Chen & Chaiken, 1999), we propose that voters use organizational endorsements as heuristic cues to help them develop their attitudes toward initiatives. It is hypothesized that the influence of endorsements on initiative voting depends on the applicability, availability, and diagnosticity of the endorsement voting cue and on the degree to which the voter is motivated to fully evaluate the arguments behind the initiative. An experiment was conducted in which motivation (processing goal instructions), cue applicability (match between endorsing organization and initiative), and initiative (four different hypothetical ballot issues) were manipulated. Results showed support for our first two hypotheses, but not for the third.     

When and How Different Motives Can Drive Motivated Political Reasoning

It is commonly assumed that the effectiveness of political messages depends on people's motivations. Yet, studies of politically motivated reasoning typically only consider what partisans generally might want to believe and do not separately examine the different types of motives that likely underlie these wants. The present research explores the roles of distinct types of motives in politically motivated thinking and identifies the conditions under which motivated reasoners are persuaded by political messages. Results of an experiment with a large, representative sample of Republicans show that manipulations inducing motivations for either (1) forming accurate impressions, (2) affirming moral values, or (3) affirming group identity each increased beliefs in and intentions to combat human-induced climate change, but only when also paired with political messages that are congruent with the induced motivation. We also find no evidence of a backlash effect even when individuals are provided with clearly uncongenial information and a motivation to reject it. Overall, our findings make clear that understanding when and why motivated political reasoning occurs requires a more complete understanding of both which motivations might be active among a group of partisans and how these motivations resonate with the messaging they receive.     

The Affective Tipping Point: Do Motivated Reasoners Ever “Get It”?

In order to update candidate evaluations voters must acquire information and determine whether that new information supports or opposes their candidate expectations. Normatively, new negative information about a preferred candidate should result in a downward adjustment of an existing evaluation. However, recent studies show exactly the opposite; voters become more supportive of a preferred candidate in the face of negatively valenced information. Motivated reasoning is advanced as the explanation, arguing that people are psychologically motivated to maintain and support existing evaluations. Yet it seems unlikely that voters do this ad infinitum. To do so would suggest continued motivated reasoning even in the face of extensive disconfirming information. In this study we consider whether motivated reasoning processes can be overcome simply by continuing to encounter information incongruent with expectations. If so, voters must reach a tipping point after which they begin more accurately updating their evaluations. We show experimental evidence that such an affective tipping point does in fact exist. We also show that as this tipping point is reached, anxiety increases, suggesting that the mechanism that generates the tipping point and leads to more accurate updating may be related to the theory of affective intelligence. The existence of a tipping point suggests that voters are not immune to disconfirming information after all, even when initially acting as motivated reasoners.     

An Experimental Investigation of Election Promises

We analyze the effect of election promises on electoral behavior in a laboratory experiment. In the experiment, politicians can make nonbinding election promises about how to split an endowment between themselves and the group. We find that promises affect both voting and voter beliefs about how much the politician will contribute to the public fund. The relationship is inverted U‐shaped with decreasing credibility of higher promises. Contributions of politicians are correlated with their promises in a similar pattern. The election promises are generally credible unless particularly high. Politicians keep promises more often if a reelection is possible and if the politician came into power by vote rather than by random draw. Voters reward high contributions in the previous period and punish promise breaking even after controlling for the contribution in the previous period or voters' beliefs about future contributions. By controlling for voters' beliefs, we distinguish retrospective from prospective voting. Our results suggest that voters both use promises for prospective voting and retrospectively punish broken promises.     

Assumed policy similarity and voter preference

The effects of attitude similarity on voters' preferences were examined. Using secondary analyses, the authors created measures of assumed similarity across 6 issues between voters and U.S. presidential candidates (in 1972). Greater similarity was associated with greater attraction (operationalized in terms of voters' presidential preferences). In 2 independent analyses, perceived similarity resulted in predictive accuracy of 84% to 88%. In a 3rd analysis, the predictive efficiency of each of 6 similarity measures was determined and used to develop a model that accurately predicted voters' actions in a hold-out sample. Findings demonstrate the importance of perceived attitude similarity in determining voter preferences and suggest the utility of earlier similarity-attraction research for the development of models of policy choice behavior.     

Partisanship,Political Knowledge,and the Dunning‐Kruger Effect

A widely cited finding in social psychology holds that individuals with low levels of competence will judge themselves to be higher achieving than they really are. In the present study, I examine how the so‐called “Dunning‐Kruger effect” conditions citizens' perceptions of political knowledgeability. While low performers on a political knowledge task are expected to engage in overconfident self‐placement and self‐assessment when reflecting on their performance, I also expect the increased salience of partisan identities to exacerbate this phenomenon due to the effects of directional motivated reasoning. Survey experimental results confirm the Dunning‐Kruger effect in the realm of political knowledge. They also show that individuals with moderately low political expertise rate themselves as increasingly politically knowledgeable when partisan identities are made salient. This below‐average group is also likely to rely on partisan source cues to evaluate the political knowledge of peers. In a concluding section, I comment on the meaning of these findings for contemporary debates about rational ignorance, motivated reasoning, and political polarization.     

Not Simply in the Eye of the Beholder: Authenticity as a Product of Candidate Preference and Unfettered Speech

Authenticity has emerged over recent decades as a prominent theme in both the press and in political research—and peaked in the 2016 presidential contest that pitted Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz. In this context, we attempted to answer the question: How do voters judge a presidential candidate's authenticity? Here we use motivated reasoning and correspondent inference theory as theoretical frameworks to examine how partisan preference combines with perceptions of unfettered speech and strategic impression management to influence voter judgments of a candidate's authenticity. An online survey of 525 respondents demonstrated that individuals' partisan preferences influenced both judgments of a candidate's authenticity and their perceptions of behaviors signifying authenticity (use of unfettered speech versus strategic impression management). These behavioral signals partially mediated the relation between candidate preferences and authenticity judgments. Moreover, voters, given their partisan preferences, differentially weighted candidates' use of unfettered speech and strategic impression management tactics in their judgments of authenticity. Finally, unfiltered/politically incorrect speech was found to have both positive and negative effects on authenticity judgments. Findings further elucidate the nature of authenticity as perceived in others and identify intermediary variables and boundary conditions that influence those perceptions.     

Does the Candidate Matter? Comparing the Voting Choice of Early and Late Deciders

Candidate personality traits have long been recognized as influential in the determination of voting choice. However, little is understood of how the perception of candidates' traits influences different categories of voters. Based on a large‐scale electoral‐panel survey (ITANES, ITAlian National Election Studies), the present study investigated whether the voting choice of early and late deciders differentially relied on candidate traits. Results showed that after considering the influence of ideology and economy assessment, candidate traits still influenced the voting choice of early deciders and, even more, of late deciders. However, while early deciders took into account both incumbent and challenger traits, late deciders mainly relied on incumbent traits. Political sophistication moderated this effect, with high‐sophisticated early deciders relying even more on the challenger, and low‐sophisticated late deciders relying even more on the incumbent. The distinction between incumbent and challenger is discussed as a key variable in explaining the role of candidate traits in the choice of voters differing as to voting decision time and political sophistication.     

Mediational role of values in linking personality traits to political orientation

Two studies use the Five Factor Model of traits and Schwartz's (1992 ) theory of basic personal values to assess the mediational role of values in linking traits to voting choice and left-right ideology. Both left- and right-wing voters showed distinctive traits and values that were congruent with their ideologies. Structural equation modelling supported a hypothesized full mediation model. Individuals' traits of openness, conscientiousness and agreeableness explained significant variance in the politically relevant values of security and universalism, and these self-reported values, in turn, explained the voters' political orientations. These findings held across age (adolescents and adults) and were corroborated using both cross-sectional and longitudinal data.     

Ideological belief bias with political syllogisms

Abstract

The belief bias in reasoning occurs when individuals are more willing to accept conclusions that are consistent with their beliefs than conclusions that are inconsistent. The present study examined a belief bias in syllogisms containing political content. In two experiments, participants judged whether conclusions were valid, completed political ideology measures, and completed a cognitive reflection test. The conclusions varied in validity and in their political ideology (conservative or liberal). Participants were sensitive to syllogisms’ validity and conservatism. Overall, they showed a liberal bias, accepting more liberal than conservative conclusions. Furthermore, conservative participants accepted more conservative conclusions than liberal conclusions, whereas liberal participants showed the opposite pattern. Cognitive reflection did not magnify this effect as predicted by a motivated system 2 reasoning account of motivated ideological reasoning. These results suggest that people with different ideologies may accept different conclusions from the same evidence.     

Voter Preference and Emotion: Using Emotional Response to Classify Decided and Undecided Voters1

This study tested the utility of using the emotioneliciting qualities of candidates to classify both decided and undecided voters. Based on Mehrabian and Russell's (1974b) theoretical perspectives, a hypothesis was developed that emotional response to candidates could be used to discriminate between voters. Three hundred eighty-six registered voters in Bexar County, Texas, were randomly polled. These voters were asked a series of attitude and behavior questions. Of special interest for this study were questions about the Texas Governor's race between Bill Clements and Mark White. Voters were asked to identify their preference for either man and to respond to questions that tapped the emotioneliciting qualities of each candidate. The results indicated that the emotioneliciting qualities of the political candidates could be used to discriminate both decided and undecided voter preference. Specifically, over 90% of the decided voters and 80% of the undecided voters were accurately classified. This was seen as important for two reasons. First, it supported the claim that emotions may play an important role in voter preference. Second, it suggested a method for discriminating between voters even when voters were unable to immediately identify their own candidate preferences. Also of importance was the finding that the emotioneliciting quality scales became a “clarification” tool for some voters who were “on the fence” about the two candidates. After these voters responded to questions about thek feelings, candidate preference could be more clearly verbalized. A refinement of the “emotion-eliciting quality” instrument was suggested for future research.     

Party Support,Values, and Perceptions of Electoral Integrity

The legitimacy of the electoral process is crucial for the consolidation of democracy. We here focus on individual perceptions of electoral integrity (IPEI) and seek to understand what factors can explain different degrees of IPEI. In particular, we use the sixth wave of the World Values Survey (2010–14) to examine how antiauthoritarian values affect individuals' directional bias, driven by political party support, in evaluating electoral integrity. The results show that IPEI do depend on an interaction of political party support and the strength of antiauthoritarian values. However, the addition of the latter does not lead to a convergence of integrity evaluations among winners and losers, as may be expected under the assumption that antiauthoritarian values drive voters to more carefully monitor and evaluate the electoral process. Instead, it leads to greater polarization between electoral winners and losers. We explain the result with reference to the motivated reasoning literature on biased information processing: While antiauthoritarian convictions lead people to obtain more information on the electoral process, their political leanings bias their reading of this information, which in effect leads to stronger polarization in perceptions.     

Why the Sky Didn't Fall: Mobilizing Anger in Reaction to Voter ID Laws

Since 2002, 26 U.S. states have passed laws that enhance restrictions on voters who intend to register and vote. Most have been sponsored by Republican legislators and passed by states with large Republican majorities. Proponents of such identification requirements argue that they are necessary to ensure the integrity of the electoral system by reducing voter fraud. Many Democrats have cried foul, arguing these laws are motivated by crass partisanship at best, and racial bias at worst, because they disproportionately disenfranchise minorities. Surprisingly, empirical evidence for significant demobilization, either in the aggregate or among Democrats specifically, has thus far failed to materialize. We suspect strong emotional reactions to the public debate about these laws may mobilize Democrats, counterbalancing the disenfranchising effect. We find support for this conjecture in a nationally representative survey and an experiment where news frames about voter identification (ID) laws are carefully manipulated.     

Basis for Decision: An Attitudinal Analysis of Voting Behavior1

A psychological theory which suggests that a person's attitude toward any object is a function of his beliefs about the object and the evaluative aspects of those beliefs is presented. Thus, in the political arena, a person should like or dislike a given candidate because (a) he believes the candidate has certain personal characteristics, is affiliated with certain reference groups, or is for or against various issues; and (b) evaluated these characteristics, groups, and issues positively or negatively. Evidence from a local survey in the 1964 presidential election supports this theory and its application to voting behavior. In addition, the data clearly indicate that voters do take partisan stands on some issues, do clearly discriminate between the candidates vis-a-vis certain issues, and do change their beliefs during the course of a campaign. These data suggest that a new protrait of the American voter is overdue.     

My point is valid,yours is not: myside bias in reasoning about abortion

The study explores whether people are more inclined to accept a conclusion that confirms their prior beliefs and reject one they personally object to even when both follow the same logic. Most of the prior research in this area has relied on the informal reasoning paradigm; in this study, however, we applied a formal reasoning paradigm to distinguish between cognitive and motivational mechanisms leading to myside bias in reasoning on value-laden topics (in this case abortions). Slovak and Polish (N?=?387) participants indicated their attitudes toward abortion and then evaluated logical syllogisms with neutral, pro-choice, or pro-life content. We analysed whether participants’ prior attitudes influenced their ability to solve these logically identical reasoning tasks and found that prior attitudes were the strongest predictor of myside bias in evaluating both valid and invalid syllogisms, even after controlling for logical validity (the ability to solve neutral syllogisms) and previous experience of logic.     

Voters and leaders in the mirror of politics: similarity in personality and voting choice in Italy and Spain

Relations between voting choice and similarity in traits between voters and political candidates are examined in two studies. The first study was conducted in Spain, where the personalities of Mariano Rajoy and José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero were assessed. The second study was conducted in Italy, where the politicians assessed were Walter Veltroni and Silvio Berlusconi. Results show in both cases a similarity between voters' self-reported personality and their appraisals of the leaders of the party for which they voted. Similarity is generally higher with respect to traits that are the most distinctive for each platform and its leader. The findings show a higher similarity between voters and their leaders on the markers of agreeableness, such as "loyal" and "sincere." Findings hold across countries and political figures, demonstrating the role that personal characteristics of both voters and candidates play in orienting political preference.