Motivated reasoning, fast and slow

• Published in: Behavioural Public Policy Vol. 8; no. 3; pp. 617 - 632
• Main Authors: Strömbäck, Camilla, Andersson, David, Västfjäll, Daniel, Tinghög, Gustav
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge Cambridge University Press 01.07.2024
• Subjects: Cognition & reasoning; Data collection; experiment; Experiments; feelings; Gender; Hypotheses; Immigration; Information processing; motivated reasoning; numeracy; Pilot projects; Public policy; Quotas; time pressure
• ISSN: 2398-063X; 2398-0648; 2398-0648
• DOI: 10.1017/bpp.2021.34

Are people more likely to (mis)interpret information so that it aligns with their ideological identity when relying on feelings compared to when engaging in analytical thinking? Or is it the other way around: Does deliberation increase the propensity to (mis)interpret information to confirm existing political views? In a behavioral experiment, participants ( n = 1207, Swedish sample) assessed numerical information concerning the effects of gender quotas and immigration either under time pressure or under no time pressure. To measure trait differences in cognitive sophistication, we also collected data on numeric ability. We found clear evidence of motivated reasoning when assessing both the effects of gender quotas on companies’ financial results and the effect of refugee intake on crime rates. Subjects who prioritized equality over liberty on the labor market were 13 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that companies that used gender quotas when hiring made less profit. Subjects who classified themselves as ‘Swedes’ rather than ‘World citizens’ were 14 percentage points less likely to correctly assess numerical information depicting that crime rates decreased following immigration. Time pressure did not affect the likelihood to engage in motivated reasoning, while subjects with higher numeric ability were less likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information concerning refugee intake, but more likely to engage in motivated reasoning when analyzing information regarding the effect of gender quotas. Together these results indicate that motivated reasoning is primarily driven by individual differences in analytical thinking at the trait level and not by situational factors such as time pressure, and that whether motivated reasoning is primarily driven by analysis or feelings depends on the topic at hand.