In this article, we explore whether incongruent information influences what people recall to mind about a presidential candidate’s policy statements. We investigate whether the volume of people’s political thoughts, their ability to produce arguments, the affective valence of these thoughts, and their integrative complexity are influenced by the congruency between new political information and prior political convictions. We conducted an experiment via MTurk manipulating the congruency of information with respect to ideology. Our results show that incongruency significantly alters how people think about politics. Incongruent information increases integrative complexity of the opposing thoughts, becomes more voluminous, and includes more rationales. Moreover, these defensive thoughts are significantly more negative and less positive about the incongruent information. Parallel to what studies on motivated reasoning demonstrated, we also find that politically knowledgeable people in particular seem to strengthen their thoughts’ cognitive structure while defending their priors against information counter to their political views. We further discuss the general effects of these results and the importance of challenges to existing beliefs in generating complex thought systems.
BartelsL. M. (2002). Beyond the running tally: Partisan bias in political perceptions. Political Behavior, 24, 117–150.
2.
BerinskyA.HuberG.LenzG. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20, 351-368.
3.
BolsonT.DruckmanJ. N.CookL. (2014). The Influence of partisan motivated reasoning on public opinion. Political Behavior, 36, 235-262.
4.
ConwayL. G.IIIGornickL. J.HouckS. C.AndersonC.StockertJ.SessomsD.. . . McCueK. (2015). Are conservatives really more simple-minded than liberals? The domain specificity of complex thinking. Political Psychology, 37, 777-798.
5.
ConwayL. G.IIIThoemmesF.AllisonA. M.TowgoodK. H.WagnerM. J.DaveyK.. . . McCueK. (2008). Two ways to be complex and why they matter: Implications for attitude strength and lying. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1029-1044.
6.
ErisenC.LodgeM.TaberC. (2014). Affective contagion in effortful political thinking. Political Psychology, 35, 187-206.
7.
ErisenE.ErisenC. (2012). The effect of social networks on the quality of political thinking. Political Psychology, 33, 839-865.
8.
HillS. J. (2017). Learning together slowly: Bayesian learning about political facts. Journal of Politics, 79.
9.
HuberG.A.HillS. J.LenzG.S. (2012). Sources of bias in retrospective decision making: Experimental evidence on voters limitations in controlling incumbents. American Political Science Review, 106, 720-741.
10.
HuckfeldtR.SpragueJ.(1995). Citizens, politics, and social communication. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
11.
IyengarS.HahnK. S. (2009). Red media, blue media: Evidence of ideological selectivity in media use. Journal of Communication, 59, 19-39.
12.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 690-707.
13.
JamiesonK. H.CappellaJ. N. (2008). Echo chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the conservative media establishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 339-375.
15.
KahnemanD. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
16.
KrupnikovY.LevineA.S. (2014). Cross-sample comparisons and external validity. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 1, 59-80.
17.
KundaZ. (1987). Motivation and inference: Self-serving generation and evaluation of evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 636-647.
18.
KundaZ. (1990). The case of motivated reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 108, 480-498.
19.
LauR.RedlawskD. (2006). How voters decide: Information processing in election campaigns. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
20.
LeboM.CassinoD. (2007). The aggregated consequences of motivated reasoning and the dynamics of partisan presidential approval. Political Psychology, 28, 719-746.
21.
LeeperT.SlothuusR. (2014). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and public opinion formation. Advances in Political Psychology, 35, 129-156.
22.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2000). Three steps toward a theory of motivated political reasoning. In LupiaA.McCubbinsM.PopkinS. (Eds.), Elements of reason: Cognition, choice, and the bounds of rationality (pp. 182-213). London, England: Cambridge University Press.
23.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2005). The automaticity of affect for political leaders, groups, and issues: An experimental test of the hot cognition hypothesis. Political Psychology, 26, 455-482.
24.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter: Unconscious thought in political information processing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
25.
LordC.RossM.LepperM. (1979). Biased assimilation and attitude polarization: The effect of prior theories on subsequently considered evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 2098-2109.
26.
MasonL. (2015). “I disrespectfully agree”: The differential effects of partisan sorting on social and issue polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59, 128-145.
27.
McGuireW. J.McGuireC. V. (1991). The content, structure, and operation of thought systems. In Wyer Jr.R. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. IV, pp. 1-79). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
MeffertM.ChungS.JoinerA. J.WaksL.GarstJ. (2006). The effects of negativity and motivated information processing during a political campaign. The Journal of Communication, 56, 27-51.
29.
MillerJ. M.SaundersK. L.FarhartC. E. (2016). Conspiracy endorsement as motivated reasoning: The moderating roles of political knowledge and trust. American Journal of Political Science, 60, 824-844.
30.
MoussaïdM.BrightonH.GaissmaierW. (2015). The amplification of risk in experimental diffusion chains. Proceedings of the National Academic of Sciences of the United States of America, 112, 5631-5636.
31.
MullinixJ. K.LeeperT. J.DruckmanJ. N.FreeseJ. (2015). The generalizability of survey experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 2, 109-138.
32.
NisbettR. E.RossL. (1980). Human inference: Strategies and shortcoming of social judgment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
NyhanB.ReiflerJ. (2010). When corrections fail: The persistence of political misperceptions. Political Behavior, 32, 303-330.
35.
RedlawskD. P. (2001). You must remember this: A test of the on-line model of voting. Journal of Politics, 63, 29-58.
36.
RedlawskD. P. (2002). Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of motivated reasoning on political decision making. Journal of Politics, 64, 1021-1044.
37.
RedlawskD. (2006). Motivated reasoning, affect, and the role of memory in voter decision making. In RedlawskD. (Ed.), Feeling politics: Emotion in political information processing (pp. 87-108). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
RedlawskD. P.CivettiniA.EmmersonK. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “Get it”?Political Psychology, 31, 563-593.
39.
RudolphT. J. (2006). Triangulating political responsibility: The motivated formation of responsibility judgments. Political Psychology, 27, 99-122.
40.
SlothuusR.de VreeseC. H. (2010). Political parties, motivated reasoning, and issue framing effects. The Journal of Politics, 72, 630-645.
41.
SnidermanP. M.BrodyR. A.TetlockP. E. (1991). Reasoning and choice: Explorations in political psychology. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
SuedfeldP. (2010). The cognitive processing of politics and politicians: Archival studies of conceptual and integrative complexity. Journal of Personality, 78, 1669-1702.
43.
SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (1977). Integrative complexity of communications in international crises. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 21, 169-184.
44.
SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (2014). Integrative complexity at forty: Steps toward resolving the scoring dilemma. Political Psychology, 35, 597-601.
45.
SuhayE.BlackwellA.RocheC.BruggemanL. (2015). Forging Bonds and Burning Bridges: Polarization and Incivility in Blog Discussions About Occupy Wall Street. American Politics Research, 43, 643-679.
46.
TaberC. S.LodgeM. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50, 755-769.
47.
TausczikY. R.PennebakerJ. W. (2010). The psychological meaning of words: LIWC and computerized text analysis methods. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 29, 24-54.
48.
TetlockP. (1984). Cognitive style and political belief systems in the British House of Commons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 365-375.
49.
TetlockP. (1985). Integrative complexity of American and Soviet foreign policy rhetoric: A time-series analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 1565-1585.
TetlockP. E. (1983). Cognitive style and political ideology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 118-126.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
