The Policy Consequences of Motivated Information Processing Among the Partisan Elite

Anderson, Sarah; Harbridge, Laurel

doi:10.1177/1532673x13511658

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Previous ACF research has demonstrated the effect of motivated reasoning (Kunda, 1990; Kahan, 2013) on actors' and coalitions' behaviour within policy subsystems (e.g. Anderson & Harbridge, 2014;Henry, 2011;Matti & Sandström, 2011;Pierce, 2011;Steyaert & Jiggins, 2007). However, the specific role of motivated reasoning in policy learning has not been examined.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He speculates that this correlation could be attributed to the 'biased assimilation' of information and of evidence provided by policy actors with whom one disagrees. In doing so, motivated reasoning contributes to the polarization of policy coalitions (Anderson & Harbridge, 2014) and makes policy compromises more difficult to attain (Steyaert & Jiggins, 2007).…”

Section: The Cognitive Consistency Of Policy Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cognition and policy change: the consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework

Moyson

2017

Policy and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Policy actors involved in decision-making processes interact and gradually accumulate evidence about policy problems and solutions. As a result, they update their policy beliefs and preferences over time. This process of policy learning is consistent if policy preferences are aligned with any adaptations in beliefs about policy outcomes-a crucial condition of learning-induced policy changes. This article examines whether and when policy learning is consistent based on regression analyses conducted on data from a 2012 survey of 293 Belgian actors involved in the European liberalization policy process for the rail and electricity sectors. In line with the advocacy coalition framework, existing research has suggested that motivated modes of reasoning, such as selective exposure and biased assimilation, influence policy actors' attitudes and behaviours. This study isolates the effect of biased assimilation on policy learning by demonstrating that when policy actors adapt their beliefs about policy outcomes, they do not necessarily align their policy preferences with those adaptations. Furthermore, biased assimilation is higher among politically curious actors, but their degree of commitment to the policy process does not appear to play a role. The theoretical and practical implications of these findings are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Cognitive Consistency Of Policy Learningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cognition and policy change: the consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework

Moyson

2017

Policy and Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Much of the information politicians receive is also prestructured by the institutional structures (Baumgartner and Jones 2015). Moreover, politicians' information processing has consequences for themselves (e.g., their political career) and for citizens, which may make them more motivated to use the information in the best way possible (Anderson and Harbridge 2014;Jacobs 2011;Jones 2001;Sheffer et al 2018;Weyland 2014). The upshot of this is that, at least under some conditions and contra our main expectation, politicians may not use the representativeness heuristic in their judgement and decision making.…”

Section: How Do Politicians Process Information?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Politicians, the Representativeness Heuristic and Decision-Making Biases

Stolwijk¹,

Vis

2020

Polit Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do politicians use the representativeness heuristic when making judgements, that is, when they appraise the likelihood or frequency of an outcome that is unknown or unknowable? Heuristics are cognitive shortcuts that facilitate judgements and decision making. Oftentimes, heuristics are useful, but they may also lead to systematic biases that can be detrimental for decision making in a representative democracy. Thus far, we lack experimental evidence on whether politicians use the representativeness heuristic. To contribute to and extend the existing literature, we develop and conduct a survey experiment with as main participants Dutch elected local politicians from the larger municipalities (n = 211). This survey experiment examines whether politician participants display two decision-making biases related to the representativeness heuristic: the conjunction error and scope neglect. We also run the experiment with a student sample (n = 260), mainly to validate the experimental design. Our findings show that politician participants neglect scope in one scenario and that they display the conjunction error in two of three scenarios. These results suggest that politician participants use the representativeness heuristic. Conversely, our third conjunction error scenario does not find evidence for politician participants displaying this bias. As we discuss in the article, the latter may be an artifact of our experimental design. Overall, our findings contribute fundamentally to our understanding of how politicians process information and how this influences their judgements and decision making.

show abstract

“… 30 On this general tendency, see Kunda (1990) and Redlawsk (2002). On its manifestation among public policy makers, see Anderson and Harbridge (2014). Occasionally academic scholarship does have a substantial impact on government decisions (Derthick and Quirk 1985), but those instances are exceptions to the general rule. …”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Supreme Court Elections: How Much They Have Changed, Why They Changed, and What Difference It Makes

Baum¹

2017

Law soc. inq.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This essay draws on four recent studies of elections to state supreme courts in the United States to probe widely perceived changes in the scale and content of electoral campaigns for seats on state supreme courts. Evidence from these studies and other sources indicates that changes have indeed occurred, though they are more limited than most commentaries suggest. These changes stem most directly from trends in state supreme court policy that have attracted interest‐group activity, especially from the business community. Like their extent, the effects of change in supreme court campaigns have been meaningful although exaggerated by many observers. What we have learned about changes in supreme court elections has implications for choices among selection systems, but those implications are mixed and complex.

show abstract

The Policy Consequences of Motivated Information Processing Among the Partisan Elite

Cited by 12 publications

References 47 publications

Cognition and policy change: the consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework

Cognition and policy change: the consistency of policy learning in the advocacy coalition framework

Politicians, the Representativeness Heuristic and Decision-Making Biases

Supreme Court Elections: How Much They Have Changed, Why They Changed, and What Difference It Makes

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About