Motivated Reasoning

This paper asks whether partisan disagreements about political facts reflect sincere motivated reasoning or mere partisan cheerleading. Using incentivized survey experiments that let respondents search for answers and matching web‑browsing data, the authors show that cheerleading modestly inflates factual gaps but does not account for them. Partisan differences in information search persist under incentives and in natural browsing, consistent with the interpretation that partisans prefer congenial information and often hold inaccurate, party‑favorable beliefs.

This study asks how voters respond to a political scandal when evidence of misconduct is both clear and attributable to a specific party, and whether those conditions limit partisan motivated reasoning. Using the unexpected release of a video tied to Britain’s Partygate scandal and a nationally representative survey fielded at that moment, the research examines changes in performance evaluations, party favorability, and vote intentions toward the involved governing party.

Many Americans consume ideologically aligned news, prompting proposals to encourage exposure to opposing outlets as a way to reduce polarization. Motivated reasoning theory, however, warns that confronting people with uncongenial information can backfire and deepen division. Drawing on the idea that sustained exposure to novel information can overcome motivated reasoning—and that partisan outlets on opposite sides often report different facts—this study tests whether regular consumers of one partisan source will learn and moderate when repeatedly exposed to the opposing outlet.

Conspiracy beliefs shape political discourse, yet their individual-level drivers remain unclear. This study examines conspiratorial predispositions through a motivational lens, arguing that belief serves psychological needs alongside ideological ones.

Misinformation undermines democratic governance, especially in developing countries with low average education, rapidly expanding Internet access, and widespread encrypted information sharing. A field experiment in India asked whether a short, in-person media literacy lesson could improve citizens' ability to spot false or misleading political claims during the 2019 elections.

This study examines divergent perceptions of officer-involved shootings following racial incidents. After the 2014 Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, Missouri, researchers analyzed public reactions to understand how race influences interpretations of these events.

Goal-Dependent Political Evaluation: New research reveals how political contexts shape motivated reasoning. When politics feels like debate, people actively defend their views. If it resembles deliberation, however, they're more likely to seek consensus and consider opposing perspectives.

Getting facts right doesn't guarantee understanding in political debates.

Voter Decision-Making With Polarized Choices

New research explores how partisan media outlets amplify viewers' political polarization. Using experimental methods and data analysis, it demonstrates that exposure to partisan content strengthens extreme viewpoints among citizens—even days afterward.