The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It
Abstract
Recent research identifiespolitically motivated reasoningas the source of persistent public conflict over policy‐relevant facts. This essay, the first in a two‐part set, presents a basic conceptual model—thePolitically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm—and an experimental setup—thePMRP design—geared to distinguishing the influence of PMRP from a truth‐seeking Bayesian process of information processing and from recurring biases understood to be inimical to the same. It also discusses alternative schemes for operationalizing “motivating” group predispositions and the characteristics of valid study samples for examining this phenomenon.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“People may process information in a manner that is consistent with their partisan identities, prior beliefs, and motivations, a process known as motivated cognition (34–37).”
From Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media (2021) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“This has brought researchers to conclude that negative influence effect is elusive, with limited relevance for politics outside the laboratory (88, 90, 93–95): while we may be less influenced by our political opponents, we are unlikely to be negatively influenced by them.”
From How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting (2022) · cites this paper as [88]
Citations
Cites
Lord, C. G., Ross, L., & Lepper, M. R. (1979) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.37.11.2098 · Cited by 4,583
(2003) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.40-4918 · Cited by 2,016
Cultural cognition of scientific consensus.
Kahan, D. M., Jenkins‐Smith, H., & Braman, D. (2011) · Journal of Risk Research · doi:10.1080/13669877.2010.511246 · Cited by 1,686
Self-citationThe psychology of self-defense: Self-affirmation theory
Sherman, D. K., & Cohen, G. L. (2006) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(06)38004-5 · Cited by 1,614
Party Over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.
Cohen, G. L. (2003) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808 · Cited by 1,400
Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., & Freed, G. L. (2014) · Pediatrics · doi:10.1542/peds.2013-2365 · Cited by 1,300
Lodge, M., & Taber, C. S. (2013) · doi:10.1017/cbo9781139032490 · Cited by 1,281
Using Mechanical Turk to Study Clinical Populations
Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013) · Clinical Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/2167702612469015 · Cited by 1,139
Conducting Clinical Research Using Crowdsourced Convenience Samples
Chandler, J., & Shapiro, D. (2016) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-021815-093623 · Cited by 1,072
Rationality and the Reflective Mind
Stanovich, K. (2010) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195341140.001.0001 · Cited by 1,041
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Frankovic K., 2015, Most republicans do not think humans are causing climate change
- Kahan D. M., The expressive rationality of inaccurate perceptions of fact, Behavioral & Brain Sciences
- 10.1038/nnano.2008.341 · DOI
- Moore P., 2015, Most Republicans back a flat tax
- Newport F., 2015, Majority say more concealed weapons would make U.S. Safer
- Smith T.W., 2014, General social survey, 2014 file [data file and codebook]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Out-group animosity drives engagement on social media
Rathje, S., Van Bavel, J. J., & van der Linden, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2024292118 · Cited by 560
Ditto, P. H., Liu, B. S., Clark, C. J., Wojcik, S. P., Chen, E. E., Grady, R. H., Celniker, J. B., & Zinger, J. F. (2019) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691617746796 · Cited by 535
Moral reframing: A technique for effective and persuasive communication across political divides
Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2019) · Social and Personality Psychology Compass · doi:10.1111/spc3.12501 · Cited by 302
How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting
Törnberg, P. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2207159119 · Cited by 288
Jerit, J., & Zhao, Y. (2020) · Annual Review of Political Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032814 · Cited by 263
Metadata
- Authors
- Kahan, D. M.
- Affiliations
- Yale University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kahan, Dan M.
- ORCID
- Kahan, Dan M.
- Venue
- Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2016-11-29
- Pages
- 1-16
- OpenAlex
- W2564709365
- Cited by
- 341
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 59 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 2
- Type
- other
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
- Keywords
- cognitive biases
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
