The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It

Kahan, Dan M.

doi:10.1002/9781118900772.etrds0417

Cited by 264 publications

(253 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

238

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, an argument in favor of military spending that highlights how the military provides a level playing field for the poor and minorities in the US would likely be unpersuasive to liberals if the messenger was Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, or Donald Trump. Political psychology research suggests that the effect of moral reframing would be substantially muted, if not eliminated, in this situation (Cohen, ; see also Goren, ), because the target would approach the message with outgroup bias and would be strongly motivated to reject the argument before even reading it (Kahan, ).…”

Section: Mechanisms Driving Moral Reframing Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

Feinberg

Willer

2019

Social & Personality Psych

184

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The political landscape in the US and many other countries is characterized by policy impasses and animosity between rival political groups. Research finds that these divisions are fueled in part by disparate moral concerns and convictions that undermine communication and understanding between liberals and conservatives. This “moral empathy gap” is particularly evident in the moral underpinnings of the political arguments members of each side employ when trying to persuade one another. Both liberals and conservatives typically craft arguments based on their own moral convictions rather than the convictions of the people they target for persuasion. As a result, these moral arguments tend to be unpersuasive, even offensive, to their recipients. The technique of moral reframing—whereby a position an individual would not normally support is framed in a way that is consistent with that individual's moral values—can be an effective means for political communication and persuasion. Over the last decade, studies of moral reframing have shown its effectiveness across a wide range of polarized topics, including views of economic inequality, environmental protection, same‐sex marriage, and major party candidates for the US presidency. In this article, we review the moral reframing literature, examining potential mediators and moderators of the effect, and discuss important questions that remain unanswered about this phenomenon.

show abstract

Section: Mechanisms Driving Moral Reframing Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

Feinberg

Willer

2019

Social & Personality Psych

184

125

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Democrats and Republicans disagree more about whether laws permitting people to carry concealed handguns will increase or decrease homicide rates than about whether prayer should be permitted in public schools. Citizens who rank the value of liberty and equality differently disagree more about the reality of anthropogenic climate change than about the justice of progressive taxation (Kahan , 1).…”

Section: The Relevance Of Facts To Judgments Of Value: Motivated Reasmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Dan Kahan argues that such polarized factual disagreements reflect politically motivated reasoning: people disagree about the facts because they disagree about moral and political values. They process the evidence to make their factual conclusions cohere with the values of their identity group, and to defend their group against criticism by rival groups (Kahan , ; Kahan et al ). For example, gun rights advocates, who are mostly white men, view themselves as exhibiting masculine virtue in possessing guns to protect themselves, their families, and other innocents from threats.…”

Section: The Relevance Of Facts To Judgments Of Value: Motivated Reasmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Epistemology of Justice

Anderson¹

2020

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In arguing about justice, different sides often accept common moral principles, but reach different conclusions about justice because they disagree about facts. I argue that motivated reasoning, epistemic injustice, and ideologies of injustice support unjust institutions by entrenching distorted representations of the world. Working from a naturalistic conception of justice as a kind of social contract, I suggest some strategies for discovering what justice demands by counteracting these biases. Moral sentiments offer vital resources to this end.

show abstract

“…In this article, I focus on work in psychology and political science on cultural cognition. 7 Dan Kahan and his collaborators present evidence that both liberals and conservatives form beliefs about politically contentious scientific issues (such as global warming) in ways that reflect their political views and broader cultural identities. I want to explore the epistemological consequences of cultural cognition.…”

Section: Introductory Remarksmentioning

confidence: 99%

Irrelevant Cultural Influences on Belief

McKenna

2018

J Applied Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent work in psychology on 'cultural cognition' suggests that our cultural background drives our attitudes towards a range of politically contentious issues in science such as global warming. This work is part of a more general attempt to investigate the ways in which our wants, wishes and desires impact on our assessments of information, events and theories. Put crudely, the idea is that we confirm our assessments of the evidence for and against scientific theories with clear political relevance to our pre-existing political beliefs and convictions. In this article, I explore the epistemological consequences of cultural cognition. What does it mean for the rationality of our beliefs about issues such as global warming? I argue for an unsettling conclusion. Not only are those on the 'political right' who reject the scientific consensus on issues like global warming unjustified in doing so, some of those on the 'political left' who accept the consensus are also unjustified in doing so. I finish by addressing the practical implications of my conclusions.

show abstract

The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It

Cited by 264 publications

References 32 publications

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides

The Epistemology of Justice

Irrelevant Cultural Influences on Belief

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About