Motivated reasoning: what is it and how is it associated with emotions?

Christmas dinners are tense situations. Not because the food may not have turned out quite right, not because of the cold, not because of the absences, but because there are many people gathered and they all have different opinions.

But don't worry, all these guests agree, at least, on one thing: they all believe they are right.

Motivated reasoning It comes to be the belief that one's opinion is the best of all the had and for having and ignoring any data that shows that this is not the case. We all live it in our day to day, and then we will see more in depth what it is and why it occurs.

• Related article: "Are we rational or emotional beings?"

What is motivated reasoning?

Motivated reasoning is a cognitive bias involving individual aspects, including emotions, stereotypes, fears, beliefs, and subconscious reasoning. These cognitive aspects influence decision-making, making the person believe that he is acting rationally without actually being so. All aspects influence the way in which reality is perceived.

The information that the person receives is processed in such a way that it matches their own point of view. The person gives greater importance to the data that give strength to his own vision of the world, while those who are contrary or who refute what is believed are, simply, omitted. This is because basically it is very difficult to change our opinion and see what it fails at, although we are "experts" in trying to dismantle other people's points of view.

This phenomenon occurs especially when people cling to their beliefs, however false and dismountable they may be. People want their own point of view to win, which is what describes most closely what reality is like.. An attack on these beliefs is perceived as a personal attack. Our judgment is influenced by which side or opinion we want to win.

A clear example of this can be seen in soccer matches. Every fan of every football team has been a victim of this phenomenon on more than one occasion. When the referee whistles at his own team, it is very common for the fans to criticize the referee, calling him anything but beautiful things. On the other hand, if the referee whistles at the rival team, the fans have no qualms about agreeing with him and even calling the opponent great cheats.

• You may be interested: "Types of motivation: the 8 motivational sources"

Soldier's mind vs. explorer mind

Two types of minds have been proposed that relate to the way in which one is able to make self-criticism of their own beliefs: the soldier's mind and the explorer's mind.

On the one hand, the soldier's mind relates to the typical profile of a person with a certain opinion that is incapable of conceiving any idea far from his own vision of the world, defending at all costs his own point of view view. They are the people who have no qualms about telling lies, rejecting evidence, and making others see how wrong they are.

On the other side is the mind of the explorer, which would correspond to that of that person who, even having a different vision from others, dares to explore facts and explanations that could question your own way of seeing the world, allowing you to have a more flexible opinion.

Why are we convinced that we are right?

There are several aspects related to the insistence of believing that they are right and that others are wrong, even if they are not. Next we will see the main points.

1. Emotional link

In every belief there are emotions involved, which act by directing our thinking.. That is why, when looking for information about something we believe in, we prefer to look for what gives us reason instead of debating it.

2. Avoid cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon that occurs when new information contradicts what was believed or what is configured by the system of proper values. This dissonance can lead to anxiety, although that would be an extreme case.

Be that as it may, this cognitive dissonance requires a certain intellectual effort, something that is usually avoided. For this reason, motivated reasoning is used, unconsciously, as a mechanism to avoid being in this situation.

It is less lazy to believe in pleasant lies than in uncomfortable truths.

• You may be interested: "Cognitive dissonance: the theory that explains self-deception"

3. Maintain a positive self-image

What we believe in is not just a way of seeing the world. It is something that gives us strength and constitutes a very important pillar in the way we relate to the world and in our own image of ourselves.

If something is said that contradicts what we believe in, we can come to take it as a personal attack, as something that questions our own way of being.

Motivated reasoning is a protection mechanism for the Freudian ‘ego’, of our self-esteem.

4. Presumption of objectivity

Everyone sees himself as someone objective, rational, who knows how to differentiate between logic and emotion. However, and to be honest, everyone has some resistance to allowing data contrary to what they believe to settle in their mind.

We are not rational, or at least not in the way we think we are. Otherwise, why are there so many arguments at Christmas dinners?

5. Cultural validation

We share many points of view with other people, which help us feel accepted by others, delimiting the endo and the outgroup and feeling like people who have the truth on their side.

Accepting ideas that are outside the group to which you belong can cause some anxiety and feeling uprooting or, in some cases, it can even be perceived as a kind of betrayal of the endogroup.

Social implications

Motivated reasoning is extremely common and normal, and having this type of cognitive bias is not something necessarily bad, however, taking it to the extreme can be a real problem for different reasons.

This type of reasoning is easily visible in any voting person of any party.. The voter will always want to see the good of the party, and ignore what is bad or objectionable that he has committed. Within limits, this is acceptable and healthy. It stops being so good when the party you vote for is corrupt or commits rights violations. If you continue to defend him at all costs, it is clear that you are not choosing to be impartial.

Thus, if there are many people who are incapable of being critical of this party and continue to vote for it, there is a risk of having a person who will steal from the coffers of the state or city council, prioritizing having money in your own pocket instead of investing it in social benefits, better urban furniture, avoiding cuts in education ...

Another case, even more serious, is that of pseudoscientific beliefs like the one that the earth is flat, there is no climate change or that vaccines cause autism... All these claims are easily dismantled with a little science and analyzing the multiple evidences that have been found. However, a person who believes in these types of ideas, despite the fact that all evidence can be found scientist, is not going to accept it, saying that it is who is explaining who is either manipulated or in a great error.

It is in this case that we can see a very serious social implication, and that is to endanger the health of others. For example, if you believe that vaccines cause autism, you will not be vaccinated and your children will not be vaccinated, with the family being potentially susceptible to serious diseases that could be avoided. In addition, if there is someone in the neighborhood who is not vaccinated either, it could be infected, causing a pandemic.

Not believing in climate change and devaluing the studies that show that it is happening can have social implications such as being left without food due to floods and extreme droughts, in addition to the loss of useful species for humans that cannot tolerate high temperatures.

Bibliographic references:

• Epley, N. & Gilovich, T. (2016) The Mechanics of Motivated Reasoning. Journal of Economic Perspectives; 30(3): 133–140.
• Cohen, G. L. (2012) Identity, Belief, and Bias. In: Ideology, Psychology, and Law. J. Oxford: Hanson (Ed.).
• Ditto, P. H. & Lopez, D. L. (1992) Motivated skepticism: Use of differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 63: 568-584.
• Kunda, Z. (1990) The case for motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin; 108: 480-198.
• Kunda, Z. (1987) Motivated inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of causal theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology; 53: 636-647.
• Hastorf, A. H. & Cantril, H. (1954) They saw a game; a case study. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology; 49(1): 129-134.