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

Often, behind an apparent rationality and reasonableness, only emotions are hidden.

Christmas dinners are tense situations. Not because the meal may not have gone well, 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 on at least one thing: they all think they are right.

Motivated reasoning is the belief that one's opinion is the best of all opinions and ignoring any data that proves that this is not the case. We all experience it in our daily lives, and we will now take a closer look at 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 in which individual aspects are involved, including emotions, stereotypes, fears, beliefs and subconscious reasoning.. These cognitive aspects influence decision making, causing the person to believe that he or she is acting rationally when he or she is not. All these aspects influence the way reality is perceived.

The information received by the person is processed in such a way that it is made to coincide with one's own point of view. The person gives greater importance to the data that give strength to his own vision of the world, while those that are contrary or that refute what he believes in are simply omitted. This is because, basically, it is very difficult to change our opinion and see what is wrong with it.We are, however, "experts" in trying to dismantle other people's points of view.

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

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

Soldier's mind vs. scout's mind

Two types of minds have been proposed that relate to the way in which one is capable of self-criticism of one's 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 who is incapable of conceiving any idea far from his own worldview, defending his own point of view to the hilt. These are the people who have no qualms about asserting lies, rejecting evidence and making others see how wrong they are..

On the other side is the explorer's mind, which corresponds to that of the person who, while having a different view from that of others, is not afraid to tell lies, reject evidence and make others see how wrong they are, who, while having a different view from that of others, dares to explore facts and explanations that might call into question his own way of thinking. that might call into question his own way of seeing the world, allowing him to have a more flexible opinion.

Why are we convinced that we are right?

There are several aspects related to the insistence on believing that one is right and that others are wrong, even though this is not the case. The following are 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 makes us right instead of debating it.

2. Avoiding cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon that occurs when new information contradicts what was believed or what shapes one's own value system. This dissonance can even cause anxietyalthough that would be an extreme case.

In any case, this cognitive dissonance requires a certain intellectual effort, which is usually avoided. For this reason, motivated reasoning is used, unconsciously, as a mechanism to avoid finding oneself in this situation.

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

3. Maintain a positive self-image

What we believe in is not just a way of looking at the world.. It is something that gives us strength and is a very important pillar in the way we relate to the world and in our self-image.

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

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

4. Presumption of objectivity

Everyone sees themselves as objective, rational, and able to differentiate between logic and emotion. However, and let's be honest, everyone has a certain 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 to feel accepted by others, delimiting the in-group and the out-group and feeling that we are people who have the truth on their side.

Accepting ideas that are outside the group to which one belongs can cause some anxiety and a feeling of uprootedness or, in some cases, can even be perceived as a kind of betrayal of the ingroup.

Social implications

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

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

Thus, if there are many people who are unable to be 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 the city council, prioritizing having money in his own pocket instead of investing it in social assistance, better urban furniture, avoiding cuts in education...

Another case, even more serious, is that of pseudo-scientific beliefs such as that the earth is flat, that there is no climate change or that vaccines cause autism... All these claims are easily dismantled with a little science and by analyzing the multiple evidences that have been found. However, a person who believes in this type of ideas, despite all scientific evidence, will not accept it, saying that he is the one who is explaining who is either manipulated or in a big mistake.

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 he believes that vaccines cause autism, he will not vaccinate himself or his children, and the family is potentially susceptible to serious diseases that could be avoided. In addition, if there is someone in the neighborhood who is not vaccinated either, they could become infected, causing a pandemic.

Not believing in climate change and undervaluing the studies that show that it is occurring can have social implications such as running out of food due to extreme floods and droughts, in addition to the loss of useful species for humans that cannot tolerate high temperatures.

Bibliographical 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. En: 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.