The Politics of Motivation
The Politics of Motivation*
by
James N. Druckman
Northwestern University druckman@northwestern.edu June 22, 2011
Abstract
Taber and Lodge (2006) offer a powerful case for the prevalence of directional reasoning that aims not at truth, but at the vindication of prior opinions. Taber and Lodge’s results have far-reaching implications for empirical scholarship and normative theory; indeed, the very citizens often seen as performing “best” on tests of political knowledge, sophistication, and ideological constraint appear to be the ones who are the most susceptible to directional reasoning. However Taber and Lodge’s study, while internally beyond reproach, may substantially overstate the presence of motivated reasoning in political settings. That said, the focus on accuracy motivation has the potential to bring together two models of opinion formation that many treat as competitors and to offer a bases for assessing citizen competence.
*I thank Jeff Friedman, Samara Klar, and Thomas Leeper for extremely helpful advice.
Criticizing citizens’ abilities to form coherent political preferences is a favorite pastime of scholars and pundits. Many focus on citizens’ lack of information or their inability to draw on coherent ideologies. In their article, “Motivated Skepticism in Political Beliefs” (2006), Taber and Lodge shift the focus to motivation. The question is not whether citizens possess sufficient information or hold information-organizing ideologies, but rather, whether they are sufficiently motivated to analyze new information in an evenhanded way. While Taber and Lodge exhibit appropriate caution in drawing normative conclusions, they are fairly resolved that most citizens lack the motivation to integrate new information in an unbiased fashion.
In this note, I suggest that under reasonable political conditions, citizens may be more fair-minded and engage in more accurate processing than they did in Taber and Lodge’s
by
James N. Druckman
Northwestern University druckman@northwestern.edu June 22, 2011
Abstract
Taber and Lodge (2006) offer a powerful case for the prevalence of directional reasoning that aims not at truth, but at the vindication of prior opinions. Taber and Lodge’s results have far-reaching implications for empirical scholarship and normative theory; indeed, the very citizens often seen as performing “best” on tests of political knowledge, sophistication, and ideological constraint appear to be the ones who are the most susceptible to directional reasoning. However Taber and Lodge’s study, while internally beyond reproach, may substantially overstate the presence of motivated reasoning in political settings. That said, the focus on accuracy motivation has the potential to bring together two models of opinion formation that many treat as competitors and to offer a bases for assessing citizen competence.
*I thank Jeff Friedman, Samara Klar, and Thomas Leeper for extremely helpful advice.
Criticizing citizens’ abilities to form coherent political preferences is a favorite pastime of scholars and pundits. Many focus on citizens’ lack of information or their inability to draw on coherent ideologies. In their article, “Motivated Skepticism in Political Beliefs” (2006), Taber and Lodge shift the focus to motivation. The question is not whether citizens possess sufficient information or hold information-organizing ideologies, but rather, whether they are sufficiently motivated to analyze new information in an evenhanded way. While Taber and Lodge exhibit appropriate caution in drawing normative conclusions, they are fairly resolved that most citizens lack the motivation to integrate new information in an unbiased fashion.
In this note, I suggest that under reasonable political conditions, citizens may be more fair-minded and engage in more accurate processing than they did in Taber and Lodge’s
References: Atkeson, Lonna Rae, and Cherie D. Maestas. 2011. Catastrophic Opinions: Media, Emotion, Attributions, and Attitudes in Extraordinary Times. Unpublished paper, University of New Mexico. Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24(2): 117-150. Bartels, Larry M. 2003. “Democracy With Attitudes.” In Michael Bruce MacKuen, and George Rabinowitz, eds., Electoral Democracy. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press. Bolsen, Toby, James N. Druckman, and Fay Lomax Cook. 2011. “Opinions About Energy Policy.” Unpublished paper, Northwestern University. Braman, Eileen, and Thomas E. Nelson. 2007. “Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes.” American Journal of Political Science 51(4): 940–956. Bullock, John G. 2009. “Partisan Bias and the Bayesian Ideal in the Study of Public Opinion.” Journal of Politics 71(3): 1109-1124. Chaiken, Shelly, and Yaacov Trope, eds. 1999. Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: The Guilford Press. Chong, Dennis, and James N. Druckman. 2007. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies.” American Political Science Review 101: 637-655. Chong, Dennis and James N. Druckman. 2010. “Dynamic Public Opinion: Communication Effects over Time.” American Political Science Review 104(4): 663-680. Cooper, Joseph, and Garry Young. 1997. "Partisanship, Bipartisanship, and Crosspartisanship in Congress Since the New Deal." In Lawrence C. Dodd, and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds., Congress Reconsidered. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. Creyer, Elizabeth H., James R. Bettman, John W. Payne. 1990. “The Impact of Accuracy and Effort Feedback and Goals on Adaptive Decision Behavior.” Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 3(1): 1-16. Druckman, James N. 2001. “The Implications of Framing Effects For Citizen Competence.” Political Behavior 23(3): 225-256. Druckman, James N. 2004. “Political Preference Formation: Competition, Deliberation, and the (Ir)relevance of Framing Effects.” American Political Science Review 98(4): 671-686. Druckman, James N., and Toby Bolsen. 2011. “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions About Emergent Technologies.” Journal of Communication. Forthcoming. Druckman, James N., James H. Kuklinski and Lee Sigelman. 2009. “The Unmet Potential of Interdisciplinary Research: Political Psychological Approaches to Voting and Public Opinion.” Political Behavior 31: 485-510. Druckman, James N., and Arthur Lupia. 2000. “Preference Formation.” Annual Review of Political Science 3: 1-24. Edwards, Ward., Harold Lindman, and L.J. Savage. 1963. “Bayesian Statistical Inference for Psychological Research.” Psychological Review 38(3): 193-242. Fazio, Russell H. 1990. “Multiple Processes By Which Attitudes Guide Behavior: The MODE Model as an Integrative Framework.” In Mark P. Zanna, ed., Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 23. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Fazio, Russell H. 2007. “Attitudes as Object-Evaluation Associations of Varying Strength.” Social Cognition 25(5): 603-637. Fazio, Russell H. and Michael A. Olson. 2003. “Attitudes: Foundations, Functions, and Consequences.” In Michael A. Hogg, and Joel Cooper, eds., The Sage Handbook of Social Psychology. London: Sage. Fishbach, Ayelet, and Melissa J. Ferguson. 2007. “The Goal Construct in Social Psychology.” In Arie W. Kruglanski, and E. Tory Higgins, eds., Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. Guilford Press: New York Gaines, Brian J., James H Gerber, Alan and Donald Green. 1999. “Misperceptions About Perceptual Bias.” Annual Review of Political Science 2: 189-219. Gerber, Alan S., and Gregory A. Huber. 2009. “Partisanship and Economic Behavior: Do Partisan Differences in Economic Forecasts Predict Real Economic Behavior?” American Political Science Review 103(3): 407-426 Gerber, Alan S., and Gregory A Goren, Paul. 2002. “Character Weakness, Partisan Bias, and Presidential Evaluation.” American Journal of Political Science 46: 627-641. Goren, Paul., Christopher M. Federico, and Miki Caul Kittilson. 2009. “Source Cues, Partisan Identities, and Political Value Expression.” American Journal of Political Science 53(4): 805–820. Groenendyk, Eric. 2010. “Being Earnest about Importance: The Impact of Partisan Motivation on Issue Priorities.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Annual Conference. Hart, William, Dolores Albarracín, Alice H. Eagly, Inge Brechan, Matthew J. Lindberg, and Lisa Merill. 2009. “Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.” Psychological Bulletin 135(4): 555-588. Higgins, E. Tory. 1996. “Knowledge Activation. In E. Tory Higgins, and Arie W. Kruglanski, eds., Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press. Houston, David A. and Russell H. Fazio. 1989. “Biased Processing As A Function Of Attitude Accessibility: Making Objective Judgments Subjectively.” Social Cognition 7(1): 51-66. Huckfeldt, Robert, Paul Johnson, and John Sprague. 2004. Political Disagreement: The Survival of Diverse Opinions within Communication Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jerit, Jennifer. 2009. “How Predictive Appeals Shape Policy Opinions.” American Journal of Political Science 53(2): 411-426. Kahan, Dan M., Donald Braman, Paul Slovic, John Gastil, and Geoffrey Cohen. 2009. “Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology.” Nature Nanotechnology 4: 87-90. Kahneman, Daniel. 2000. “Preface.” In Daniel Kahneman, and Amos Tversky, eds., Choice, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kahneman, Daniel, and Amos Tversky, eds. 2000. Choice, Values, and Frames. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kim, Sung-youn, Charles S. Taber and Milton Lodge. 2010. “A Computational Model of the Citizen as Motivated Reasoner: Modeling the Dynamics of the 2000 Presidential Election.” Political Behavior 32: 1-28. Kinder, Donald R. 1998. “Communication and Opinion.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 167-197. Kruglanski, Arie W. 1989. Lay Epistemics and Human Knowledge: Cognitive and Motivational Bases. New York: Springer. Kühberger, Anton, Michael Schulte-Mecklenbeck, and Josef Perner. 1999. “The Effects of Framing, Reflection, Probability, and Payoff on Risk Preference in Choice Tasks.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 78: 204-231. Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The case for motivated reasoning”. Psychological Bulletin 108: 480-498. Kunda, Ziva. 2001. Social Cognition. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Lavine, Howard, Joseph W. Huff, and Stephen H. Wagner. 1998. “The Moderating Influence on Attitude Strength on the Susceptibility to Context Effects in Attitude Surveys.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75: 359-373. Lenz, Gabriel. 2011. “Understanding and Curing Myopic Voting.” Unpublished paper. Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lerner, Jennifer S., and Philip E. Tetlock. 1999. “Accounting for the Effects of Accountability.” Psychological Bulletin 125(2): 255-275. Levin, Irwin P., Sandra L. Schneider, and Gary J. Gaeth. 1998. “All Frames Are Not Created Equal: A Typology and Critical Analysis of Framing Effects.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 149-188.