Citizens’ motivated reasoning about public performance: experimental findings from the US and Denmark

Abstract

Recent studies find motivated reasoning in citizens' processing of information about public performance. Using experiments in the US and Denmark, we examine effects on an accuracy-based task of two forms of motivated reasoning: partisan identity-based reasoning and reasoning from ideology-based governance preferences (favoring either the public or the private sector). The experiments incorporate a political prime, a health care needs prime (to reduce politicization), and a neutral, no-prime, condition. We find that priming citizens to think politically accentuates the influence of partisan identities and governance preferences on reasoning. In contrast, priming about the need for a service reduces these biases. These findings extend knowledge of motivated reasoning in an accuracy-based task and priming with a noprime benchmark, and confirm some findings of previous studies. Reducing the salience of partisan identities or governance preferences in the presentation of information may help stimulate more accuracy-based reasoning about public performance.

Buying from Local Providers: The Role of Governance Preferences in Assessing Performance Information

“…Similar conclusions have been observed in public administration studies where scholars found that citizens tend to misinterpret performance information that is at odds with their prior beliefs (Baekgaard et al 2019; Baekgaard and Serritzlew 2015; James and Van Ryzin 2017). In a randomized survey experiment examining how Danish citizens interpret performance information about public and private providers of services, Baekgaard and Serritzlew (2015) observed that citizens tend to misinterpret evidence that contradicts their preferences for the public or private provision of services.…”

“…They also assert that individuals who have strong prior political beliefs are prone to even more extreme behavior because they tend to uncritically accept consistent evidence while actively refuting inconsistent information (Lodge and Taber 2000;Taber, Cann, and Kucsova 2009;Taber and Lodge 2006). Similar conclusions have been observed in public administration studies where scholars found that citizens tend to misinterpret performance information that is at odds with their prior beliefs (Baekgaard et al 2019;Baekgaard and Serritzlew 2015;. In a randomized survey experiment examining how Danish citizens interpret performance information about public and private providers of services, Baekgaard and Serritzlew (2015) observed that citizens tend to misinterpret evidence that contradicts their preferences for the public or private provision of services.…”

“…Whereas the treatment groups received evidence that clearly mentioned whether the public service provider was a local or a non-local provider, the information given to the control groups simply stated provider A and provider B. Similarly to previous studies on motivated reasoning from various research fields (Baekgaard et al 2017(Baekgaard et al , 2019Baekgaard and Serritzlew 2015;Christensen and Moynihan 2020;Kahan et al 2017;Lind et al 2018), we designed the experiment based on the concept of motivated numeracy. 2 This means that participants were obliged to calculate the percentages of satisfied and dissatisfied citizens for each provider, and to subsequently compare the percentages to determine the best performing one.…”

Cognitive bias and attitude distortion of a priority decision

“…Motivated goals include, for example, evaluative attitudes towards a group, actors, activities, objects and products and these goals have been studied by researchers specializing in social and cognitive psychology, economy and political science etc. (Baekgaard et al 2020 ; Donovan and Priester 2017 ; Epley and Gilovich 2016 ; James and Van Ryzin 2017 ; Kahan et al 2017 ; Redlawsk 2002 ). Redlawsk ( 2002 ) investigated political decision making in an experimental setting.…”

“…We will also apply the Cultural Cognitive Worldview Scales, CCWS (Kahan et al 2011 ) which aims at describing individualism versus egalitarianism. We included this scale because individualism is correlated with attitudes towards private and public health care as shown by, for example, Baekgaard and colleagues (Baekgaard, et al 2020 ). Cognitive reflection test, CRT, items were also included in the study because mathematical/logical ability has been shown to correlate negatively with motivational bias (Lind et al 2018 ).…”