Motivated Reasoning

Definition

Motivated reasoning is a form of reasoning in which people access, construct, and evaluate arguments in a biased fashion to arrive at or endorse a preferred conclusion. The term motivated in motivated reasoning refers to the fact that people use reasoning strategies that allow them to draw the conclusions they want to draw (i.e., are motivated to draw). Of course, people are not always motivated to confirm their preferred conclusions. Actually, they sometimes are motivated to draw accurate conclusions. However, the term motivated reasoning refers to situations in which people want to confirm their preferred conclusion rather than to situations in which people's reasoning is driven by an accuracy motivation.

The Domain of Motivated Reasoning

Motivated reasoning may be observed in virtually any setting. An important trigger of motivated reasoning is the confrontation with a certain threat to the self. In the absence of such a motivating threat, people may have the goal of attaining the most accurate conclusion rather than attaining a preferred conclusion. The following example may illustrate the difference. Someone who wants to buy a used car will try to make the best decision possible and hence be guided by accuracy concerns to avoid buying a lemon. After buying a used car, however, that same person may engage in motivated reasoning to support his belief that the car is not a lemon when the first signs of malfunction appear. For a less involving choice, like the choice of cereals, people will be less motivated to engage in thorough deliberation before the choice but will also be less likely to engage in motivated reasoning if their choice turns out to be bad. People's self-esteem may suffer much less from choosing bad cereals than from being suckered into buying a lemon car.

Threats to the self may come in many different forms, so different types of conclusions may trigger motivated reasoning. A first type is conclusions that bolster people's self-esteem. For instance, people attribute good test results to themselves but construct a motivated reasoning to explain bad test results to uphold the self-serving belief that they are intelligent human beings. A second type is conclusions that make people optimistic about their future. For instance, smokers engage in motivated reasoning when they dispel scientific evidence that suggests that smoking is bad for one's health. People also engage in motivated reasoning to view future competitors as less competent and future cooperators as more competent than they really are. A third type is conclusions that are consistent with strongly held beliefs or strong attitudes. For instance, supporters of a politician might downplay the consequences of an undesirable act committed by the politician they support or might attribute the behavior to situational pressures. In sum, people construct motivated reasonings when their self-worth, their future, or their understanding and valuation of the world are at stake.

The Illusion of Objectivity

That motivated reasoning is not driven by an accuracy motive does not imply that motivated reasoners [Page 596]blatantly disregard the accuracy of their reasoning. Motivated reasoners have to uphold the illusion of objectivity: They cannot ignore the extant evidence regarding the issue at stake. If they are exposed to strong, compelling evidence contrary to their preferred conclusion, they will have to concede that their preferred conclusion is incorrect—the so-called reality constraint. For instance, in the used car example, when the car breaks down very often, the buyer will no longer be able to engage in motivated reasoning to defend his or her belief that the car is not a lemon.

...