Tracing the Boundaries of Motivated Reasoning: How Deliberative Minipublics Can Improve Voter Knowledge

Abstract

A large body of work shows that reasoning motivated by partisan cues and prior attitudes leads to unreflective decisions and disparities in empirical beliefs across groups. Surprisingly little research, however, has tested the limits of motivated reasoning. We argue that the publicly circulated findings of deliberative minipublics can spark a more reflective motivation in voters when these bodies provide policy‐relevant factual information. To test that proposition, we conducted a survey experiment using information generated by one such minipublic during an election. Results showed that exposure to the minipublic's findings improved the accuracy of voters' empirical beliefs regarding a ballot proposition on the regulation of genetically modified seeds. This treatment effect transcended voters' partisan identities and prior environmental attitudes. In some instances, the respondents showing the greatest knowledge gains were those who a directional motivated‐reasoning account would have expected to resist the treatment most effectively, owing to party identity or prior attitudes.

Advisory, Collaborative and Scrutinizing Roles of Deliberative Mini-Publics

“…There are studies showing that the CIR increases voters' knowledge on the issue at hand and understanding of different viewpoints regarding the ballot initiative (Knobloch et al, 2019). Some studies suggest further that the CIR process can counteract the effects of motivated reasoning among voters (Már and Gastil, 2019) and enhance learning and reflection even in polarized contexts (Setälä et al, 2020). Although the CIR process is designed to facilitate informed and reflected judgments among voters, successful mini-publics used in conjunction with representative institutions should give rise to similar processes of learning and reflection among elected representatives.…”

The Impact of Public Deliberation on Climate Change Opinions Among U.S. Citizens

“…In another example, using online deliberation held to rebuild the former World Trade Center, Black (2008) presents how personal storytelling can be used in local decision making. In other cases, scholars have conducted experimental deliberative pools to see how public view changes after a deliberation-in a recent example Mar and Gastil (2020) found out that a deliberative mini-public can improve voter knowledge. As a result, participants transcended their partisan identities and environmental belief in favor of empirical evidence presented.…”

Linking Theories of Motivation, Game Mechanics, and Public Deliberation to Design an Online System for Participatory Budgeting

“…Nonetheless, repeated exposure to disconfirming information can create sufficient anxiety even in committed partisans that they adjust their beliefs in response (Redlawsk et al, 2010). More generally, when reliable information about candidates and ballot measures is provided in a straightforward manner, many voters can absorb such data into their beliefs before casting their ballots (Lau and Redlawsk, 2006; Már and Gastil, 2019). Game mechanics in Table 1 associated with this motivational category involve concealing information temporarily to refocus deliberation (Gordon and Baldwin-Philippi, 2014) and providing tools for visualization to make the information more accessible (Münster et al, 2017).…”