User:MarciWilson/Free Thinkers sandbox

Cognitive Strategy section of Motivated reasoning: In order to solve problems, people may use a form of cognitive strategy(link to wiki page), such as reasoning, as opposed to using critical thinking strategies. Motivated reasoning is an inferred justification strategy which is used to help mitigate cognitive dissonance. When people form and cling to false beliefs despite overwhelming evidence, the phenomenon is labeled, “motivated reasoning.”

Motivated reasoning is the, “tendency to find arguments in favor of conclusions we want to believe to be stronger than arguments for conclusions we do not want to believe” (Kunda - 5). This is not to be confused with confirmation bias.

( Lucretia ) I will work more on the goal oriantented side of things but I think this could help in the Mechanisims part what do you think?

Mechanisms
Early research on the evaluation and integration of information supported a cognitive approach consistent with Bayesian probability (Links to an external site.), in which individuals weighted new information using rational calculations. More recent theories endorse cognitive processes as partial explanations of motivated reasoning but have also introduced motivational or affective processes to further illuminate the mechanisms of the bias inherent in cases of motivated reasoning. To further complicate the issue, the first neuro-imaging study designed to test the neural circuitry of individuals engaged in motivated reasoning found that motivated reasoning "was not associated with neural activity in regions previously linked with cold reasoning tasks [Bayesian reasoning] and conscious (explicit) emotion regulation". However, current research refutes that conclusion. “Banks and Hope (2014) early conflict sensitivity findings indicate that logical reasoning --- a process that is traditionally believed to require slow System 2 computations ---can literally be accomplished in a split second.” That is according to Bago, et al. EEG study which shows that elementary logical reasoning happens in the same neurocircuitry as the emotional fast reasoning. (Ref. # here for Bago, et al. article)

The next section focuses on two theories that elucidate the mechanisms involved in motivated reasoning. Both theories distinguish between mechanisms present when the individual is trying to reach an accurate conclusion, and those present when the individual has a directional goal.

Bago, B, et al., (2018) Fast and Slow Thinking: Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Conflict Sensitivity, Neuropsychologia, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 117: 483-490 Found at: http://doi.org/10.1016/J.neurophyschologia.2018.07.017

Lucretia Park, 8 November 2019```

Marci: I think we should start out with perfecting the "lead" paragraph to include more about what Motivated Reasoning is and summarizing what the article will contain. Currently, the lead paragraph contains information that is not specifically discussed in the rest of the article. I think this will also help us figure out a better outline for the entire article and what topics we want to address.

(Caleb): I agree with intro, poor structure and allows us format what we want. It allows to shape this article, you can tell it was built by multiple people who are no longer invested in the page because everything seems slapped together haphazardly without care as to what the end result looks like. That is a good place to start. I also copied some of the other thoughts from Talbot's Sandbox.

(Lucretia) What do you think of this as a possible lead paragraph for our Motivated Reasoning article? (see below)

Motivated Reasoning is seen in cognitive science and social psychology as a mechanism people use that is emotion-driven to come to a conclusion that is most favorable. This comes about by the desire to avoid cognitive dissonance. People use motivated reasoning as a mechanism to evaluate arguments, conversations and asses data in order to quickly reach a conclusion they wish for rather than accept the evidence of the most logical explanation. Motivated Reasoning can play a part in daily activities. An example of this may be watching a close ending of a ball game. One might assume a biased outcome quickly on what is the most favorable conclusion to them if the referee makes a hard to tell call on the winning point. However, on the contrary, one might easily accept the evidence and not call to question the final judgment made. (Mamaluke78 (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)) (Moved to Edit Source of User Page on 12 October 2019. Lucretia Park)```

Talbot: Outcomes Paragraph

The outcomes of motivated reasoning derive from "a biased set of cognitive processes—that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion."

Research on motivated reasoning tested accuracy goals (i.e., reaching correct conclusions) and directional goals (i.e., reaching preferred conclusions). Factors such as these affect perceptions; and results confirm that motivated reasoning affects decision-making and estimates.

Caleb: Mechanisms;Goal orientated reasoning-last paragraph

This theory of motivated reasoning is fully developed and tested in Lodge and Taber's The Rationalizing Voter (2013). David Redlawsk (2002) found that the timing of when disconfirming information was introduced played a role in determining bias. When subjects encountered incongruity during an information search, the automatic assimilation and update process was interrupted. This results in one of two outcomes: subjects may enhance attitude strength in a desire to support existing affect (resulting in degradation in decision quality and potential bias) or, subjects may counter-argue existing beliefs in an attempt to integrate the new data. This second outcome is consistent with the research on how processing occurs when one is tasked with accuracy goals.

--there is room to expand upon the quoted research conducted by Lodge and Taber's article, if in fact it does at all. Regardless, this area needs to either be fleshed out or cut--

As mentioned above the outcomes section needs a lot of work, because the outcomes are just as important as mechanisms.

Marci: I would really like us to add a paragraph about the neural side of motivated reasoning. I will find my source for this and add it next week so we can start working on it.

Lucretia’s Reference:

Bago, B, et al., (2018) Fast and Slow Thinking: Electrophysiological Evidence for Early Conflict Sensitivity, Neuropsychologia, Paris Descartes University, Paris, France. 117: 483-490 Found at: http://doi.org/10.1016/J.neurophyschologia.2018.07.017

(Lucretia): Possible change in our document write-up. The article about Fast & Slow Thinking points out that these two categories are no-longer totally separate as they are presented in the original article on "Motivated Reasoning."

( Lucretia): The second reference for the regular article before working on it, is from Newsweek US. August 25, 2009. "Lies of Mass Destruction". This is not a good quality source as it is a magazine & has been put on the Internet. Therefore, it is not a peer-reviewed, academic article as we have been instructed should be used.

Also, #15 is a newspaper article (New York Times). Lucretia Park

Matt: Rough Rough Draft for Lead section Motivated reasoning is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology. This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms. Motivated reasoning works with cognitive dissonance reduction to reduce bias between contradictory beliefs. It also plays a role in the decisions one makes regarding others objectives when guided towards one’s own outcome. Motivated Reasoning also uses evaluation of evidence to guide individuals to their end decisions. •	Cognitive dissonance reduction[1] •	Beliefs about others on whom one's own outcomes depend[1] •	Evaluation of evidence related to one's own outcomes[1]

Working on expanding the bullet points above, and making it so when the reader comes to the article, they see enough to get the picture of what Motivated Reasoning is without reading the whole article. Reading teams sources and sections to gather more information and working on links within article. MattMattPSY (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

My (Caleb) rough draft of research and outcomes section:

Research[edit][edit]
Neuroscience research suggest that "motivated reasoning is qualitatively distinct from reasoning when people do not have a strong emotional stake in the conclusions reached. " However, if there is a strong emotion attached to their reasoning from previous interactions with the information, motivated reasoning is much more likely to occur. This can create pathways within the neural network that further ingrains the reasoned beliefs of that individual. This causes the strong emotion to reoccur when confronted with contradictory information. This is what is referred to by Lodge and Taber as the affective contagion [9] (can find more sources to expound upon the differences and the specific neurological structures and systems involved).

Social science research suggests that reasoning away contradictions is psychologically easier than revising feelings. In this sense, emotions are shown to color how "facts" are perceived. Feelings come first, and evidence is used mostly in service of those feelings. Evidence that supports what is already believed is accepted, that which contradicts it is not.

With the advancements of technology and the amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate available. More research will need to be done to see how it affects motivated reasoning.

Outcomes[edit][edit]
The outcomes of motivated reasoning derive from "a biased set of cognitive processes—that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion." There are recent studies that have shown that when people are presented and forced to think analytically about something more complex, and have limited background with i.e. climate sciences, there is no directional shift and motivated reasoning is more likely to occur. Conversely, if there are presented with a more simplistic test of analytical thinking that confronts their beliefs, motivated reasoning is less likely to occur. [2] This pathway of decision making

Research on motivated reasoning tested accuracy goals (i.e., reaching correct conclusions) and directional goals (i.e., reaching preferred conclusions). Factors such as these affect perceptions; and results confirm that motivated reasoning affects decision-making and estimates. However, recent studies have shown that motivated reasoning can be overcome. "When the amount of incongruency is relatively small, the heightened negative affect does not necessarily override the motivation to maintain [belief]." There is evidence shown of a theoretical "tipping point" where the amount on incongruent information that is received by the motivated reasoner can turn certainty into anxiety, which may lead to a change of opinion. [1] This, however was done in a controlled environment where the time between preconcieved notions where severely limited.

Can talk to how the advancement of technology and the availability of information from many sources have made this problem exponentially worse). (look for sources that speak to the outcomes and how that effects and further entrenches people within their reasoning regardless of accuracy). How it affects confrontation with accuracy.


 * 1) Redlawsk, D. P., Civettini, A. J. W., & Emmerson, K. M. (2010). The affective tipping point: Do motivated reasoners ever “get it.” Political Psychology, 31(4), 563–593. https://doi-org.ezproxy.uvu.edu/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00772.x
 * 2) Pennycook, G., & Rand, D. G. (2019). Lazy, not biased: Susceptibility to partisan fake news is better explained by lack of reasoning than by motivated reasoning. Cognition, 188, 39-50.