Motivated reasoning is a fascinating cognitive bias that we unconsciously employ to avoid cognitive dissonance between preconceived ideas and conflicting evidence. It refers to our propensity to use reasoning and logic not to objectively evaluate evidence or information to determine the truth, but rather to bolster and defend our pre-existing beliefs. In other words, motivated reasoning is an unconscious practice of shaping the way we interpret and process new information to match our predetermined beliefs.

We would like to believe that we shape our opinions from a dispassionate examination of facts. However, this is not how we do it. In a frightening way, our beliefs shape what we perceive. Facts, no matter how convincing, are easily manipulated. On the other hand, a fact, no matter how flimsy, if it support our belief, we latch on to it, share it, and glorify in its unflappable meaning.

Unmanaged motivated reasoning creates selective information processing, leading to imaginary realities, where we dangerously flounder in our misbeliefs. Certainly, motivated reasoning can destroy our futures, but more importantly, when practiced by large groups, can destroy democracies.

Our reaction to experience is biased by our perceptions. We respond with “directionally motivated reasoning, which leads people to seek information that reinforces their partisan beliefs and counterargue contradictory information (Joslyn & Sylvester, 2019). Typically, we are “cognitive misers, disinclined to take the time and effort to carefully prosecute the veracity of their prior beliefs given new information” (Vail et al. 2023). So instead of genuine dispassionate investigation of information, we work backwards. We hold to our belief and search for support. We create an “illusion of objectivity.” Motivated reasoning can therefore distort how people evaluate and revise knowledge claims, influencing which evidence receives attention, which sources appear credible, and whether confidence changes.

Biased Scanning and Motivated Reasoning

Motivated reasoning describes how a preferred conclusion can influence the mental processes used to evaluate evidence. Ziva Kunda proposed that motivation affects which beliefs and memories become accessible, which arguments people construct, and how critically they evaluate competing claims. People may still experience themselves as objective because the reasons supporting their preferred conclusion are the reasons most readily available to consciousness (Kunda, 1990).

Biased scanning theory describes one way this directional influence may occur. Once a person begins preparing to defend a position, the search through memory becomes uneven. Supporting examples receive attention and rehearsal, while contrary information is less likely to be retrieved or developed. The position may consequently feel well supported—not necessarily because its evidence is stronger, but because more supporting material has become mentally available.

Biased scanning also extends the discussion beyond beliefs a person already holds. In early role-playing experiments, participants were assigned positions and asked to advocate them. Active advocates sometimes moved further toward the assigned position than participants who encountered the same message passively. A follow-up study found greater opinion change when participants improvised supporting arguments than when they merely read a prepared message aloud. Generating and adapting the case appeared more influential than repetition alone (Janis & King, 1954; King & Janis, 1956).

The two concepts therefore operate at different levels. Motivated reasoning is the broader framework: goals and desired conclusions influence reasoning. Biased scanning identifies a more specific process through which this can happen—the selective retrieval, development, and rehearsal of supporting considerations. A valued belief can initiate the search, but so can a temporary role, an anticipated explanation, or the demand to defend a decision. What begins as advocacy may gradually become self-persuasion.

An Example of Motivated Reasoning

For an example. Let’s say you hold a strong belief or position on a particular topic, such as climate change. Once your position is set, and invested in, you begin to process evidence differently. So, when you come across new scientific studies or evidence that contradicts your viewpoint (whether you are for or against), instead of critically analyzing and considering the new information objectively, you instinctively search for flaws or inconsistencies in the research. You may dismiss it as flawed, biased, or not relevant to the bigger picture. On the other hand, when you come across studies or evidence that align with your preconceived belief, you readily accept it as valid and reliable.

So, if a new study is published and broadcast on the news giving evidence of climate change, those that already believe climate change is a problem feel vindicated in their belief. “See, I knew it,” they silently proclaim. However, those that believe it is a politically created phenomenon, disregard the study, seeing it as another political stunt to dupe the public. In essence, the climate change study has no impact on persuading people to reexamine their original positions.

To illustrate this concept further, let’s consider the example of sports fans. The home town stadium is always at odds with the referees. Seldom do they notice a missed call when one of their players commits a foul. However, if the other team fouls, they shout in abhorrence, stunned that the referee could miss such an obvious and flagrant violation. We express motivated reasoning following our biased interpretation. We watch replays taking note of why or why not certain behaviors should or should not be a foul.

We take a position, look for evidence that supports it, and if we find some evidence—enough so that our position ‘makes sense’—we stop thinking.

~Jonathan Haidt

When Do We Use Motivated Reasoning

We manifest motivated reasoning in many aspects of our lives, including politics, religion, and personal relationships. It can lead to confirmation bias, where we actively seek out information that confirms our existing beliefs, while disregarding or challenging information that contradicts them. This bias hinders our ability to engage in constructive dialogue, impeding personal growth, and severely limiting our understanding of the world.

We see repeatedly in congress, no matter how compelling the argument, senators and representatives continue to vote right along with party agendas on all the dividing issues. The strength of the argument and new evidence has little to do with the vote.

Leonard Mlodinow, Ph.D., explains:

“Through motivated reasoning each side finds ways to justify its favored conclusion and discredit the other, while maintaining a belief in its own objectivity. And so those on both sides of important issues may sincerely think that theirs is the only rational interpretation” (Mlodinow, 2013).

More disruptive to our personal lives we use motivated reasoning in our relationships. Once we label a person, let’s say as ‘selfish,’ then we conduct motivated reasoning to support our label of selfishness. We dismiss any behaviors that contradict our judgment while magnifying any behaviors we perceive as supporting of our belief.

John Gottman, a world renowned relationship researcher, says as relationships mature and friendship is no longer working “people go into negative sentiment override,” seeing our partner as our adversary, rather than our once annoying friend (Gottman, 2011). Consequently, once we make this shift, we begin to employ motivating reasoning to support our new conclusion.

Negative Affect Response

One theory suggests that information immediately strikes an emotional chord which subsequently drives cognitions on the issue. Basically, this theory suggests that new incoming information that conflicts with beliefs creates a burst of negative feeling. Our brain, seeking homeostasis, immediately makes a ‘snap judgement’ and then goes about creating a narrative to support that judgment, regardless of its correctness.

Basically, we hear ‘global warming,’ it stirs negative emotions, we make a snap judgment, and then support our judgment rather than evaluate any new incoming facts with conscious unbiased deliberation.

Anything can trigger a ‘hot spot.’ The person making the remark, the topic, or the surrounding environment that creates the frame of reference proceeding the information. For example, former president Trump says something, for some this triggers a hot spot reaction, no matter what he says, and reasoning follows a well known path.

Patrick W. Kraft, Milton Lodge, and Charles Taber wrote:

“Shortly after the arousal of positive and/or negative feelings, activation from both prior attitude and incidental affect will spread along well-travelled ‘hot’ associative pathways. The retrieval of considerations will be biased in the direction of valence, of initial affect evoked by prior attitudes and incidental affect” (Kraft et al., 2015).

Our reasoning is anchored in presupposed conclusions.

Motivated Reasoning Often Unconscious

Motivated reasoning can sometimes be subconscious, driven by our deep-rooted emotions and psychological needs. Often, our beliefs are intertwined with our identity, and challenging those beliefs can feel like a personal attack. As a result, we tend to protect our beliefs, even if it means distorting facts or ignoring evidence.

Mlodinow explains:

“The Motivated reasoning we engage in when we have a personal stake in an issue proceeds via a different physical process within the brain than the cold, objective analysis we carry out when we don’t. Motivated reasoning involves a network of brain regions that are not associated with ‘cold’ reasoning, including the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex—parts of the limbic system—and the posterior cingulate cortex and precuneus, which are also activated when one makes emotionally laden moral judgments” (Mlodinow, 2013).

Associated Concepts

• Confirmation Bias: The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one’s preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
• Cognitive Dissonance: The mental discomfort experienced when holding two or more contradictory beliefs, values, or ideas, leading individuals to rationalize their behavior or beliefs.
• Self-Serving Bias: The common habit of a person taking credit for positive events or outcomes, but blaming outside factors for negative events.
• Dunning-Kruger Effect: A cognitive bias wherein people with limited knowledge or competence in a domain overestimate their own ability or knowledge.
• Belief Perseverance: The phenomenon where individuals maintain their beliefs despite new information that firmly contradicts them.
• Hostile Media Effect: The perception that media coverage is biased against one’s position on an issue due to one’s own strong partisan views.
• Groupthink: The practice of thinking or making decisions as a group in a way that discourages creativity or individual responsibility.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

Awareness of motivated reasoning is crucial for fostering critical thinking, open-mindedness, and healthy intellectual discourse. By recognizing this bias within ourselves, we can strive to approach new information with an open and objective mindset, willing to evaluate and reconsider our beliefs based on evidence rather than personal biases. Only through this intellectual humility can we truly expand our knowledge, discarding previous beliefs that are no longer relevant in our dynamic ever changing world.

References:

Gottman, John M. (2011). The Science of Trust: Emotional Attunement for Couples. W. W. Norton & Company; Illustrated edition. ISBN: 0393707407
(Return to Main Text)

Janis, Irving L.; King, Bert T. (1954). The Influence of Role Playing on Opinion Change. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49(2), 211–218. DOI: 10.1037/h0056957
(Return to Main Text)

Joslyn, Mark R.; Sylvester, Steven M. (2019). The Determinants and Consequences of Accurate Beliefs About Childhood Vaccinations. American Politics Research, 47(3), 628-649. DOI: 10.1177/1532673X17745342
(Return to Main Text)

King, Bert T.; Janis, Irving L. (1956). Comparison of the Effectiveness of Improvised Versus Non-Improvised Role-Playing in Producing Opinion Changes. Human Relations, 9(2), 177–186. DOI: 10.1177/001872675600900202
(Return to Main Text)

Kraft, Patrick W.; Lodge, Milton; Taber, Charles S. (2015). Why People “Don’t Trust the Evidence”: Motivated Reasoning and Scientific Beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 658(1), 121-133. DOI: 10.1177/0002716214554758
(Return to Main Text)

Kunda, Ziva (1990). The Case for Motivated Reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108(3), 480–498. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.108.3.480
(Return to Main Text)

Mlodinow, Leonard (2013). Subliminal: How Your Unconscious Mind Rules Your Behavior. Vintage; Illustrated edition. ISBN: 0307472256
(Return to Main Text)

Vail, Kenneth E. III; Harvell-Bowman, Lindsey; Lockett, McKenzie; Pyszczynski, Tom; Gilmore, Gabriel (2023). Motivated Reasoning: Election Integrity Beliefs, Outcome Acceptance, and Polarization Before, During, and After the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election. Motivation and Emotion, 47(2), 177–192. DOI: 10.1007/s11031-022-09983-w
(Return to Main Text)