Forum Motivated Reasoning and Public Opinion

Abstract Citizens, especially those who are knowledgeable and care the most about politics, are motivated to defend their beliefs and attitudes in the face of discrepant information. These motivated biases strongly influence the way people think about health care policies and the politicians and parties that propose or attack these conten-tious policies. Three cognitive mechanisms are identified: a prior belief effect, confir-mation bias, and disconfirmation bias. Together, these information processes conspire to produce persistence and polarization of opinion on health care policies. Citizens, especially those who know and care the most about public poli-cies, are not open- minded. They are not inclined toward balance or even-handedness when thinking about and discussing politics. Rather, they are motivated reasoners who seek out congenial sources of information and defend their attitudes and beliefs when challenged, and as a consequence they tend to polarize in the face of both confirming and disconfirming information. This article reviews motivated reasoning research and con-siders the implications of motivated reasoning for rational public opinion. As we illustrate our theory of motivated reasoning, we provide examples of how cognitive biases influence a wide range of health- related attitudes, from broad, national decisions about health reform to individual decisions about caffeine consumption and smoking. Our primary theme is the importance of understanding how internal motivations and biases can influence deliberative cognitive processing. Although the bulk of our research has focused on biased processing within the political environment, this article seeks to emphasize, particularly t