Motivated reasoning

Ziva Kunda reviewed research and developed a theoretical model to explain the mechanism by which motivated reasoning results in bias.[1] Motivation to arrive at a desired conclusion provides a level of arousal, which acts as an initial trigger for the operation of cognitive processes. For someone to participate in motivated reasoning, either consciously or subconsciously, that individual first needs to be motivated. Motivation then affects reasoning by influencing the knowledge structures (beliefs, memories, information) that are accessed and the cognitive processes used.

By comparison, Milton Lodge and Charles Taber[5] introduced an empirically supported model in which affect is intricately tied to cognition, and information processing is biased toward support for positions that the individual already holds. Their model has three components.

1. On-line processing in which, when called on to make an evaluation, people instantly draw on stored information which is marked with affect;
2. Affect is automatically activated along with the cognitive node to which it is tied;[6]
3. A "heuristic mechanism" for evaluating new information triggers a reflection on "How do I feel?" about this topic. The result of this process results in a bias towards maintaining existing affect, even in the face of other, disconfirming information.

This theory is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber's book The Rationalizing Voter (2013).[7] David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data.[5] This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.

To summarize, the two models differ in that Lodge and Taber identify a primary role for affect in guiding cognitive processes and in maintaining bias. In contrast, Kunda identifies a primary role for cognitive strategies such as memory processes, and the use of rules in determining biased information selection. At least one study in neuroscience does not support the use of cognitive processes in motivated reasoning, lending greater support to affective processing as a key mechanism in supporting bias.

Several works on accuracy-driven reasoning suggest that when people are motivated to be accurate, they expend more cognitive effort, attend to relevant information more carefully, and process it more deeply, often using more complex rules.

Kunda asserts that accuracy goals delay the process of coming to a premature conclusion, in that accuracy goals increase both the quantity and quality of processing—particularly in leading to more complex inferential cognitive processing procedures. When researchers manipulated test subjects’ motivation to be accurate by informing them that the target task was highly important or that they would be expected to defend their judgments, it was found that subjects utilized deeper processing and that there was less biasing of information. This was true when accuracy motives were present at the initial processing and encoding of information.[8][9] In reviewing a line of research on accuracy goals and bias, Kunda concludes, "several different kinds of biases have been shown to weaken in the presence of accuracy goals".[1] However, accuracy goals do not always eliminate biases and improve reasoning. Some biases(biases resulting from using the availability heuristic) might be resistant to accuracy manipulations. For accuracy to reduce bias, the following conditions must be present:

1. Subjects must possess appropriate reasoning strategies.
2. They must view these as superior to other strategies.
3. They must be capable of using these strategies at will.

These last two conditions introduce the construct that accuracy goals include a conscious process of utilizing cognitive strategies in motivated reasoning. This construct is called into question by later neuroscience research that concludes that motivated reasoning is qualitatively distinct from reasoning (in instances when there is no strong emotional stake in the outcomes).[4] Accuracy-oriented individuals who are thought to use "objective" processing can vary in information updating depending on how much faith they place in a provided piece of evidence and inability to detect misinformation that can lead to beliefs that diverge from scientific consensus.[10]

Directional goals enhance the accessibility of knowledge structures (memories, beliefs, information) that are consistent with desired conclusions. According to Kunda, such goals can lead to biased memory search and belief construction mechanism.[1] Several studies support the effect of directional goals in selection and construction of beliefs about oneself, other people and the world.

Cognitive dissonance research provides extensive evidence that people may bias their self-characterizations when motivated to do so. Other biases such as confirmation bias, prior attitude effect, disconfirmation bias could contribute to goal-oriented motivated reasoning.[10] For example, in one study, subjects altered their self-view by viewing themselves as more extroverted when induced to believe that extroversion was beneficial.

The motivation to achieve directional goals could also influence which rules (procedural structures, such as inferential rules) are accessed to guide the search for information. Studies also suggest that evaluation of scientific evidence may be biased by whether the conclusions are in-line with the reader's beliefs.

In spite of goal-oriented motivated reasoning, people are not at liberty to conclude whatever they want merely because they want to.[1] People tend to draw conclusions only if they can muster up supportive evidence. They search memory for those beliefs and rules that could support their desired conclusion or they could create new beliefs to logically support their desired goals.

Despite the differences in information processing, an accuracy motivated individual and a goal-motivated individual can reach the same conclusion. However, the distinction lies in crafting effective communication where those who are accuracy motivated will respond better to credible evidence catered to the community while those who are goal-oriented will feel less-threatened when the issue is framed to fit their identity or values.[10]

Coal-fired power station Neurath in Grevenbroich, North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany.

The topic of climate change is a prime example where motivated reasoning to believe in climate change is shown. Climate change is becoming an increasingly obvious issue in the US specifically.[11] Though there are many facts and evidence showing it,[12] many still like to debate if the issue really is what it seems to be. Many deny climate change, say it is a hoax, blame the government, mind control, conspiracy theories, etc. “A significant segment of the American public has fixed beliefs, either because they are not politically engaged, or because they hold strong beliefs that are unlikely to change”.[13] With the hundreds of facts given to people about climate change, the thousands of power plants and melting ice caps, the phenomenon of motivated reasoning keeps people stubborn in their belief that climate change is not real. In addition, the phenomenon could influence goal-oriented climate skeptics to not only discredit scientific information on human-induced climate change but also to seek contrary evidence that leads to a posterior belief of even greater skepticism.[10]

Social media is used for many different purposes and ways of spreading opinions. It is the number one place people go to get information and most of that information is complete opinion and bias. The way this applies to motivated reasoning is the way it spreads, “However, motivated reasoning suggests that informational uses of social media are conditioned by various social and cultural ways of thinking”.[14] All ideas and opinions are shared and makes it very easy for motivated reasoning and biases to come through when searching for an answer or just facts on the internet or any news source.

In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, people who refuse to wear masks or get vaccinated may engage in motivated reasoning to justify their beliefs and actions. They may reject scientific evidence that supports mask-wearing and vaccination, and instead seek out information that supports their pre-existing beliefs, such as conspiracy theories or misinformation. This can lead to behaviors that are harmful to both themselves and others.[15]

When someone is trying to quit smoking, they might engage in motivated reasoning to convince themselves to keep smoking. They might focus on information that makes smoking seem less harmful, like downplaying the risks of lung cancer or heart disease, while ignoring information that emphasizes the dangers. This can make it harder for them to quit and lead to continued smoking, even though they know it's not good for their health.[16]