We may think that our search for objective truth is divorced from our emotions, but evidence from cognitive psychology shows that our logical conclusions can be determined by our emotional need for something to be true, whether or not it actually is. Motivated reasoning, also known as motivational reasoning bias, is our tendency to interpret and assess the validity of information based on its emotional impact.
What Are Common Examples of Motivated Reasoning?
Common examples of motivated reasoning include justifying unhealthy habits and defending political beliefs. Motivated reasoning is a cognitive bias that makes one assess the validity of information on emotional grounds — information validating our current emotionally charged beliefs tends to be accepted, whereas information invalidating them tends to be rejected. In the case of justifying unhealthy habits, one may choose to avoid or refute evidence of the dangers of the given habit. For instance, smokers may avoid scientific research on the negative impacts of smoking on one’s health.
Alternatively, alcoholics may deny that their excessive consumption qualifies as an addiction. In the case of political beliefs, the zealousness of one’s political affiliations tends to hinder our ability to objectively evaluate information that confounds with it. For instance, a person deeply reverent of a political leader may dismiss news of the latter’s misconduct or corruption as false propaganda despite valid and sufficient evidence. On the other hand, a person with a strong nationalistic sentiment may deny, undermine, or justify the offenses or injustices committed by their country, such as war crimes, colonialism, and breaches of human rights.
What Is the Difference Between Motivated Reasoning and Confirmation Bias?
The difference between motivated reasoning and confirmation bias is subtle, but crucial to understand. Both motivated reasoning and confirmation bias overlap in so far as they are cognitive biases that favor evidence supporting our initial views and dismiss or ignore contradictory evidence. However, the core difference lies in why and how they happen. On the one hand, confirmation bias is an error of thinking or judgment where one seeks information or evidence that supports one’s initial hypothesis or consistently aligns with other evidence.
The bias is an innate, unintentional, and unconscious aspect of our cognition typically caused by mental shortcuts (i.e. heuristics). On the other hand, motivated reasoning bias is a conscious or semi-conscious (i.e. intentional) emotional evaluation of evidence that favors what we wish or need to be true. While confirmation bias does not account for emotional factors, motivated reasoning is driven by emotions.
What Is The Primary Cause of Motivational Reasoning?
The primary cause of motivated reasoning is cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is psychological discomfort or unease that happens when two or more contradictory cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioral factors coincide. For example, the desire to smoke conflicts with knowing the harmfulness of smoking. Alternatively, the reverence one has for a political leader, conflicts with knowing they are corrupt. Such conflicts can cause mild to severe psychological distress, depending on the emotional stake of the given situation.
A high religious sentiment, for instance, tends to instigate severe cognitive distress when one behaves in a way that conflicts with their religious beliefs. Instead of addressing the emotions causing the cognitive distress, one takes the easier route of reasoning away the conflict and reaching conclusions that mitigate the distress of cognitive dissonance. As psychologist Drew Weston explained, “Motivated reasoning is a form of implicit emotional regulation in which the brain converges of judgments that minimize negative and maximize positive affect states associated with threat to or attainment of motives” (Weston, 2006).
How Can You Avoid Motivated Reasoning?
You can avoid motivated reasoning in several ways. The first step is to recognize the topics that trigger cognitive dissonance and identify the opinions or beliefs you have on each topic. This will help you identify the knowledge claims that may have been accepted due to motivated reasoning rather than objective logical thinking. The second step is to intentionally seek research material or evidence that contradicts your views on the given topic. Although we are inclined to do the opposite, try to be ‘the devil’s advocate’ for a change.
Step three is to address the emotions that are triggered by your exposure to the conflicting information you researched. Finally, after sufficiently taking into account the other point of view, reevaluate your existing opinions, beliefs, and views without rushing to a conclusion or dismissing the research findings inconsistent with it.
Motivated reasoning is very common. The best way to mitigate it requires us to remain on the lookout for any signs of emotional resistance, discomfort, or distress when we are faced with new information. Without this vigilance, we will keep falling into the same cognitive trap.
