How does directionally motivated reasoning influence discussions of politics and religion?
by Brett Reigler
Arguing on the internet can be a difficult task in today’s environment. In most cases, it feels like you are running on a treadmill, making no progress in the discussion even when you are trying your hardest to listen and speak respectfully with the other side. Why is that? Identifying the mindset that someone is operating in during an argument can be beneficial in how you approach the argument. On this page, I will explain directionally- and accuracy-based motivated reasoning, how they affect political discourse, how social media affects one’s mindset, and some approaches to engaging with those under narrow mindsets.
What is accuracy-based motivated reasoning?
Accuracy-based motivated reasoning is when an individual is motivated by facts and the best information available. In The Scout Mindset, Julia Galef calls this the “scout mindset.” For Galef, someone with the scout mindset is someone who looks at a map “of the strategic landscape” (Galef 2021). The scout only cares about the facts that the map provides; whereas others are looking for the map to align with already preconceived conclusions. Accuracy-based reasoning is less likely to corrupt one’s reasoning with bias. Researchers hypothesized that accuracy-based reasoning results in less outcome bias: “In contrast, for accuracy, based on the view that outcomes are heuristics, outcome bias was not expected. Since accuracy-based systematic processing induces objective elaboration of information, the effect of heuristics such as outcomes will be minimized. Under accuracy motives, judgments will be equivalent for positive and negative outcomes” (Agrawal and Maheswaran 2005). The results matched with their hypothesis, “Accuracy goals minimized outcome bias based on objective elaboration” (Agrawal and Maheswaran 2005). Accuracy-based reasoning is when an individual focuses on the facts regarding the situation when making decisions on leads to less outcome bias according to research.
What is directionally motivated reasoning?
The soldier mindset is an analogy for directionally motivated reasoning. Directionally motivated reasoning, or just motivated reasoning, is when someone bases their reasoning or thought process on facts that support biases they hold or will result in ends that they will gain from. Individuals are constantly trying to increase their welfare and may base their decisions on the expected personal gain from making that decision. Furthermore, individuals hold biases and prejudices that shape how they perceive the world around them. These biases and prejudices can subconsciously affect how an individual processes information. Galef offers an example in her book regarding a German Army officer in 1894. Alfred Dreyfus was accused of being a French spy with only a torn-up memorandum as evidence. The investigators knew Dreyfus was Jewish and heard reports of him acting suspiciously. The officers conducting the investigation only used evidence that supported Dreyfus’s guilt because they had a preconceived bias about Jews and Dreyfus as an individual. Dreyfus was found guilty and sentenced to prison until his case was reopened. He was later acquitted of the crime and the actual French spy was found. This example is perfect for understanding how biases can obstruct fact-based reasoning. On the well-being side of decision-making, examples are everywhere. Exercising every day can be difficult and requires discipline but everybody knows it is generally healthy to exercise daily. Yet, many individuals manifest activities that hinder their ability to exercise: “I can’t exercise today because I have to do XYZ”. This excuse may be a legitimate excuse for not excising but in many cases, people do not attempt to exercise on a busy day. People will choose XYZ activity over exercising because they believe XYZ activity is maximizing their well-being when objectivity speaking exercising may be the best activity for them to be doing. Directionally motivated reasoning, known as the soldier mindset, is when an individual lets biases or motives drive their decision-making process.
How does directionally motivated reasoning impact political discussion?
Directionally motivated reasoning impacts political discourse on many fronts. However, two areas to focus on are how it impacts politicians and the public. Politicians are expected to exhibit objective decision-making when approving legislation. Understandably, politicians have different motivations based on the office they hold and what their constituency is calling for. A senator from Illinois will have different motivations from a state representative from Texas. However, biases and prejudices that stem from before their time in office ought not to affect their decision-making. Research suggests that politicians may skew how they interpret information and data based on their prejudices and biases. Nonetheless, the experimental findings strongly support the hypothesis that politicians are biased by prior attitudes when interpreting information (Bækgaard et al. 2016). Regarding the public, directionally motivated reasoning can cause voters to become narrow-minded and increase polarization in political discourse. As one would infer, research suggests politically motivated reasoning as the source of consistent polarization over public policy (Kahan, 2015). People struggle to not let their biases and prejudices motivate their political mindset. This is not surprising because it is natural for people to let their previous experiences and biases affect what policies they would support. Directionally motivated reasoning affects politicians because they potentially misinterpret information because their biases and prejudices lean them in one direction. Voters are swayed by their biases and prejudices when conducting political discourse, which causes polarization.
How does social media influence directionally motivated reasoning?
Having a basic understanding of how social media influences our mindset is critical to having a balanced discussion in today’s political environment. Much of the political discourse that occurs today is over social media. Nonetheless, many do not understand the negative effects social media can have by creating echo chambers and positive feedback loops of directionally motivated reasoning. It is widely known that social media outlets feed their users content that will increase engagement, which in turn sells more ads. Social media apps present individual users with content that they agree with, reinforcing directionally motivated reasoning rather than resisting it.
How does one discourse with directionally motivated reasoning?
Discussing with someone who has an opposing viewpoint to yours can be challenging. In many cases, they do not concede any ground in the argument even when you provide them with facts and information that disprove their argument. To facilitate a useful discussion where both sides can argue and listen to each other requires a mutually safe environment to discuss. In-person, these places may be locations or activities to do while the discussion is taking place. On the internet, forums and threads specifically designed for argumentation can be safe places to discuss topics such as politics and religion. Creating a safe environment may also include talking with someone you know and respect. In The Scout Mindset, Galef argues just that: “To give yourself the best chance of learning from disagreement, you should be listening to people who make it easier to be open to their arguments, not harder. People you like or respect, even if you don’t agree with them. People with whom you have some common ground – intellectual premises, or a core value that you share – even though you disagree with them on other issues. People whom you consider reasonable, who acknowledge nuance and areas of uncertainty, and to whom argue in good faith.” This is the safest route to take when attempting a controversial discussion. Talking with someone you know is a safe way to begin a discussion about politics, religion, or other challenging topics. In addition, finding a common ground between both sides that create a safe environment for the discussion is another tactic that can facilitate a healthy discussion. For example, two roommates disagreeing about whether smoking should be allowed in their apartment are looking to discuss their disagreement. To avoid a heated and emotional discussion, they agree to discuss over a friendly video game. Taking some of their direct attention off each other and creating an environment that they both feel safe to talk in allowing them to agree. Another example is utilizing online forums that are created for challenging discussions such as “Change My View” – a Reddit forum with moderators and rules that enforce a structured environment for argumentation.
On this page, we discussed what directionally and accuracy-based motivating reasoning is defined as and provided examples to help illustrate. Directionally motivated reasoning poses a real threat to today’s discussions of religion and politics. Understanding how motivated reasoning is impacted by social media and how it affects political discourse is crucial when going into a discussion. Placing yourself and your peer in a safe environment where both parties will likely not get defensive is a great starting point for talking about polarizing topics. I hope you found this section informative and provided you with the information necessary to engage in safe discussion in an increasingly polarized world.
Resources
Nidhi Agrawal and Durairaj Maheswaran, “The Effects of Self-Construal and Commitment on Persuasion,” Journal of Consumer Research, Volume 31, Issue 4, March 2005, pp. 841–849.
Martin Bækgaard, Julian Christensen, Casper M. Dahlmann, Asbjørn Mathiasen and Niels B.G. Petersen: “The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians”, British Journal of Political Science 49.3 (2019).
Julia Galef, The Scout Mindset. Piatkus Books, 2021.
Dan Kahan, The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It, 2015.