Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning

How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

Kristinn Már, John W. Gastil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalPolitical Psychology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

voter
Cues
Motivation
Seeds
election
regulation
experiment
Research
Voters
Group
Surveys and Questionnaires
Partisan
Transcend
Experiment
Genetically Modified
Elections
Reflective
Treatment Effects

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Social Psychology
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Sociology and Political Science
  • Philosophy
  • Political Science and International Relations

Cite this

@article{5a23ca44ef594603a9c94149a6d3954e,
title = "Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Kristinn M{\'a}r and Gastil, {John W.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/pops.12591",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Political Psychology",
issn = "0162-895X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning

T2 - How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

AU - Már, Kristinn

AU - Gastil, John W.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85065670412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85065670412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/pops.12591

DO - 10.1111/pops.12591

M3 - Article

JO - Political Psychology

JF - Political Psychology

SN - 0162-895X

ER -