Christmas dinners are tense situations. Not because the food may not have gone well, nor because of the cold, nor because of absences, but because there are many people gathered together 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 for having and ignoring any data that proves this is not so. We all live it in our day-to-day life, and we will now look more closely at what it is and why it is given.

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, making the person believe that he or she is acting rationally without actually being so. All aspects influence the way in which reality is perceived.

The information received by the person is processed in such a way that it matches the person’s point of view. The person attaches greater importance to the data that give strength to his or her own view of the world, while those that are contrary or that refute what is believed are simply omitted. This is because, basically, it is very difficult to change our opinion and see what is wrong with it , although we are experts in trying to dismantle other people’s points of view.

This phenomenon occurs especially when people hold on to their beliefs, however false and detachable they may be. People want their own point of view to win, to be what it most closely describes as reality . 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 at football matches. Every football fan has been a victim of this phenomenon on more than one occasion. When the referee whistles at their own team, it is very common for the fans to criticize the referee, calling him anything but nice things. However, if the referee whistles at the rival team, the fans have no qualms about agreeing with him or even calling the opponent a great cheat.

Soldier’s Mind vs. Explorer’s Mind

Two types of minds have been proposed that relate to how one is able to be self-critical 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 unable to conceive of any idea far removed from his own world view, defending his own point of view to the hilt. They are the people who have no qualms about asserting lies, rejecting evidence and making others see how wrong they are .

On the other hand, there is the explorer’s mind, which would correspond to that of a person who, even though he or she has a different vision from others, dares to explore facts and explanations that might question his or her own way of seeing the world, allowing him or her to have a more flexible opinion.

Why are we convinced that we are right?

There are several aspects to the insistence on believing that you are right and that others are wrong, even if they are not. The main points are as follows.

1. Emotional bonding

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. Avoiding cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is a phenomenon that occurs when new information contradicts what was believed or what configures the system of own values. This dissonance may even cause anxiety , although this 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 being in this situation.

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

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 the image we have of ourselves.

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

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

4. Presumption of objectivity

Everyone sees himself as someone who is objective, rational, who knows how to differentiate between logic and emotion. However, and to be honest, everyone presents a certain resistance to allow 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 serve to make us feel accepted by others, delimiting the endo and exo group and feeling that we are people who have truth on their side .

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

Social implications

Motivated reasoning is extremely common and normal, and having this kind of cognitive bias is not necessarily a bad thing, but 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 what is good about the party, and ignore what is bad or reprehensible. Within limits, this is acceptable and healthy. It stops being so good when the party you are voting 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 many people are unable to be critical of this party and continue to vote for it, you run the risk of having a person who will steal from the state or city coffers, prioritizing having money in their own pockets instead of investing it in social benefits, better street furniture, avoiding cuts in education…

Another case, even more serious, is that of pseudo-scientific beliefs such as 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 by analyzing the multiple evidences that have been found. However, a person who believes in this kind of ideas, even though all scientific evidence is possible, is not going to 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 you believe that vaccines cause autism, you will not get vaccinated and neither will your children, the family being potentially susceptible to serious diseases that could be avoided. Also, if someone in the neighborhood doesn’t get vaccinated either, he or she could become infected, leading to a pandemic.

Not believing in climate change and devaluing the studies that show it is happening can have social implications such as running out of food due to floods and extreme droughts, as well as 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.