The case for partisan motivated reasoning

被引:13
作者
Williams, Daniel [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sussex, Dept Philosophy, Sussex House, Brighton BN1 9RH, England
关键词
Group cognition; Political cognition; Motivated cognition; Political belief; Rationality; Polarization; Partisan motivated reasoning; SOCIAL IDENTITY; BIAS; PARTY; PSYCHOLOGY; FACTS; POLARIZATION; JUDGMENTS; IDEOLOGY; BELIEFS; SAW;
D O I
10.1007/s11229-023-04223-1
中图分类号
N09 [自然科学史]; B [哲学、宗教];
学科分类号
01 ; 0101 ; 010108 ; 060207 ; 060305 ; 0712 ;
摘要
A large body of research in political science claims that the way in which democratic citizens think about politics is motivationally biased by partisanship. Numerous critics argue that the evidence for this claim is better explained by theories in which party allegiances influence political cognition without motivating citizens to embrace biased beliefs. This article has three aims. First, I clarify this criticism, explain why common responses to it are unsuccessful, and argue that to make progress on this debate we need a more developed theory of the connections between group attachments and motivated reasoning. Second, I develop such a theory. Drawing on research on coalitional psychology and the social functions of beliefs, I argue that partisanship unconsciously biases cognition by generating motivations to advocate for party interests, which transform individuals into partisan press secretaries. Finally, I argue that this theory offers a superior explanation of a wide range of relevant findings than purely non-motivational theories of political cognition.
引用
收藏
页数:27
相关论文
共 116 条
[51]  
Kahan DM, 2012, STANFORD LAW REV, V64, P851
[52]  
Kahan Dan M., 2017, BEHAV PUBLIC POLICY, V1, P54, DOI [10.1017/bpp.2016.2, DOI 10.1017/BPP.2016.2, 10.1017/BPP.2016.2]
[53]   Maps of bounded rationality: Psychology for behavioral economics [J].
Kahneman, D .
AMERICAN ECONOMIC REVIEW, 2003, 93 (05) :1449-1475
[54]  
Kahneman D., 1982, JUDGMENT UNCERTAINTY, P201, DOI [10.1017/CBO9780511809477, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511809477, 10.1017/cbo9780511809477.015, DOI 10.1017/CBO9780511809477.015]
[55]   Temporal Selective Exposure: How Partisans Choose When to Follow Politics [J].
Kim, Jin Woo ;
Kim, Eunji .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2021, 43 (04) :1663-1683
[57]   In the Eye of the Beholder? Motivated Reasoning in Disputed Elections [J].
Kopko, Kyle C. ;
Bryner, Sarah McKinnon ;
Budziak, Jeffrey ;
Devine, Christopher J. ;
Nawara, Steven P. .
POLITICAL BEHAVIOR, 2011, 33 (02) :271-290
[58]   Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior [J].
Krishnarajan, Suthan .
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2023, 117 (02) :474-496
[59]   THE CASE FOR MOTIVATED REASONING [J].
KUNDA, Z .
PSYCHOLOGICAL BULLETIN, 1990, 108 (03) :480-498
[60]  
Kurzban R., 2010, Why everyone (else) is a hypocrite: Evolution and the modular mind