Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd A common inference in behavioral science is that people's motivation to reach a politically congenial conclusion causally affects their reasoning—known as politically motivated reasoning. Often these inferences are made on the basis of data from randomized experiments that u...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier BV
2021
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/135504 |
| _version_ | 1826199974024577024 |
|---|---|
| author | Tappin, Ben M Pennycook, Gordon Rand, David G |
| author2 | Sloan School of Management |
| author_facet | Sloan School of Management Tappin, Ben M Pennycook, Gordon Rand, David G |
| author_sort | Tappin, Ben M |
| collection | MIT |
| description | © 2020 Elsevier Ltd A common inference in behavioral science is that people's motivation to reach a politically congenial conclusion causally affects their reasoning—known as politically motivated reasoning. Often these inferences are made on the basis of data from randomized experiments that use one of two paradigmatic designs: Outcome Switching, in which identical methods are described as reaching politically congenial versus uncongenial conclusions; or Party Cues, in which identical information is described as being endorsed by politically congenial versus uncongenial sources. Here we argue that these designs often undermine causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning because treatment assignment violates the excludability assumption. Specifically, assignment to treatment alters variables alongside political motivation that affect reasoning outcomes, rendering the designs confounded. We conclude that distinguishing politically motivated reasoning from these confounds is important both for scientific understanding and for developing effective interventions; and we highlight those designs better placed to causally identify politically motivated reasoning. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:28:46Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/135504 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T11:28:46Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | Elsevier BV |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1355042023-02-17T18:52:53Z Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference Tappin, Ben M Pennycook, Gordon Rand, David G Sloan School of Management Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Department of Brain and Cognitive Sciences © 2020 Elsevier Ltd A common inference in behavioral science is that people's motivation to reach a politically congenial conclusion causally affects their reasoning—known as politically motivated reasoning. Often these inferences are made on the basis of data from randomized experiments that use one of two paradigmatic designs: Outcome Switching, in which identical methods are described as reaching politically congenial versus uncongenial conclusions; or Party Cues, in which identical information is described as being endorsed by politically congenial versus uncongenial sources. Here we argue that these designs often undermine causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning because treatment assignment violates the excludability assumption. Specifically, assignment to treatment alters variables alongside political motivation that affect reasoning outcomes, rendering the designs confounded. We conclude that distinguishing politically motivated reasoning from these confounds is important both for scientific understanding and for developing effective interventions; and we highlight those designs better placed to causally identify politically motivated reasoning. 2021-10-27T20:23:45Z 2021-10-27T20:23:45Z 2020 2021-04-02T13:46:38Z Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/135504 en 10.1016/J.COBEHA.2020.01.003 Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ application/pdf Elsevier BV PsyArXiv |
| spellingShingle | Tappin, Ben M Pennycook, Gordon Rand, David G Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title | Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title_full | Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title_fullStr | Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title_full_unstemmed | Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title_short | Thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning: why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| title_sort | thinking clearly about causal inferences of politically motivated reasoning why paradigmatic study designs often undermine causal inference |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/135504 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT tappinbenm thinkingclearlyaboutcausalinferencesofpoliticallymotivatedreasoningwhyparadigmaticstudydesignsoftenunderminecausalinference AT pennycookgordon thinkingclearlyaboutcausalinferencesofpoliticallymotivatedreasoningwhyparadigmaticstudydesignsoftenunderminecausalinference AT randdavidg thinkingclearlyaboutcausalinferencesofpoliticallymotivatedreasoningwhyparadigmaticstudydesignsoftenunderminecausalinference |