Episode 42: Why We Are So Good At Fooling Ourselves--Understanding Motivated Reasoning

In this episode, April explains how this biased form of reasoning keeps our identities and emotions safe from the harsh glare of reality. Using justifications to support what we really want to be true lies at the heart of motivated reasoning, so the next time you eat a whole sleeve of Ritz crackers and wash it down with chardonnay, remind yourself that you exercised that morning, so it's ok.*

*note--when she says you, she means herself...

Episode 42 Show Notes:

The News Literacy Project article on motivated reasoning: https://newslit.org/educators/resources/in-brief-confirmation-bias-motivated-reasoning/

Science Direct is a scientific, health, and technical literature database containing millions of peer-reviewed articles on a wide variety of topics: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/motivated-reasoning

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S026137941400105X

Mental Health Matters is a website devoted to mental health conditions and disorders: https://mental-health-matters.org/2024/12/12/an-overview-of-motivated-reasoning/

Matt Grawitch's substack page, The Eel-Filled Hovercraft, is full of great information about psychology and decision-making: https://mattgrawitch.substack.com/

Information about climate change beliefs: https://epic.uchicago.edu/insights/2024-poll-americans-views-on-climate-change-and-policy-in-12-charts/

Excellent article about the link between conspiracy theories and motivated reasoning: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/ajps.12234?msockid=1e22d990d6c764bc2523cc64d77d65db

Nobel prize winner Gordon Pennycock talks about why conspiracy theorists think that their beliefs are widespread: https://arstechnica.com/science/2025/07/conspiracy-theorists-think-their-views-are-mainstream/

This Psychology Today article, also by Matt Grawitch, discusses the problems that can occur when goals and values collide: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hovercraft-full-eels/202106/the-collision-among-goals-and-accuracy

Ivan Jureta's article about avoiding motivated reasoning when making corporate decisions: https://ivanjureta.com/motivated-reasoning-how-to-detect-and-mitigate-its-risks/

This vs That's article on critical thinking vs reflective thinking: https://thisvsthat.io/critical-thinking-vs-reflective-thinking

YouGov article about popular conspiracy theories and the numbers of Americans who believe them: https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/48113-which-conspiracy-theories-do-americans-believe

Transcript

Episode Title

“Why We’re So Good at Fooling Ourselves: Understanding Motivated Reasoning”

• Opening music + greeting
  Hi, and welcome to Think It Through. I’m going to start the episode by giving you two examples of human behavior, maybe you can figure out what they have in common:
• The first one—Let’s say that there is a bill in Congress that is up for debate. A certain congressperson has talked to his fellow party members and already decided, even before debate begins, that they will vote against it. They may or may not listen to the arguments, but if they do, it doesn’t change their mind, even though the arguments and evidence presented for the bill’s passage are exceptionally strong. In the end the bill gets voted down along party lines. Then, when those politicians are pressed as to why they voted against it, they deflect, insult and denigrate the other side, and proclaim their own side’s objectivity and correctness.
• The second example—there’s a new employee at work, and the initial interaction you have with them leads you to believe they are not particularly friendly. The next day, you see them in the hallway talking on the phone, you say good morning as you pass but they don’t respond and continue to talk on the phone instead. You think to yourself, “I was right, this person is rude.” Later you see them in the boss’s office having a friendly conversation, but you downplay that and think something like, “Well, they’re just trying to suck up to the boss, how pathetic is that?” Then, the next day, you pass them in the hall and they wave and say good morning. You wave back, but you’re thinking to yourself, “Sure, now you’re nice.  That’s not going to work with me!” You are pretty certain that your belief about this person’s personality is the correct one.
• Teaser
  These two situations might seem very different from each other, but they actually have quite a bit in common. In each case, someone comes to a conclusion—the congressperson concludes that the bill should fail, and you conclude that the new employee is rude and unfriendly. Then in each of these situations, the people involved might see or hear something that disconfirms that conclusion—the congressperson hears good arguments and evidence for the bill’s passage, and you witness several examples of the new employee acting in a friendly manner. But the Congress person and you have already made up your minds and are not swayed by new, good evidence. That’s not just stubbornness—it’s something deeper, and it has a name: motivated reasoning."
• Roadmap
  Today we’re going to break down what motivated reasoning is, why it’s such a powerful force in our thought processes, and how we can get better at recognizing and resisting it. Let’s get started.

PART 1: WHAT IS MOTIVATED REASONING? 

Definition

Before we delve into motivated reasoning, let’s review something I’ve talked about on this podcast before—confirmation bias. According to the educational resource The News Literacy Project, confirmation bias is “the innate, unconscious bias we have in which we tend to interpret information in ways that confirm what we already believe—or want to believe.” It’s when we pay more attention to information that fits with our worldview and ignore or downplay other information that doesn’t confirm those beliefs. Motivated reasoning is very much related to this bias—it occurs when we go beyond just buying into or ignoring information and actively look for reasons why we’re right. Now you might be saying, what’s wrong with that? Well, let me explain. The word “motivated” as it’s used in this term means that we have a reason for coming to a conclusion about something. So “motivated reasoning” is generally used to mean goal-oriented (or directional) reasoning. In this type of reasoning, a person’s motive is NOT to come to the most correct conclusion; instead, it’s to arrive at a specific conclusion that they already believe is the correct one. In other words, they aren’t looking for the correct answer; they think they already know what the correct answer is, and they’re trying to prove it. The Psychology Research and Reference webpage devoted to this topic says that an important trigger for this type of reasoning “is the confrontation with a certain threat to the self.” Something about a person’s identity makes it critical for them to come to specific conclusions that support or bolster their self-esteem, their desired worldview, or that are consistent with their strongly held beliefs or attitudes. All these things motivate them to reason in a way that will bring them to their chosen conclusion. And they do it while still believing they are being objective; this illusion of objectivity is very much a part of motivated reasoning. They think their reasoning is logically valid, sound or strong when it is not. The website Science Direct, which has a very good page devoted to the topic, describes motivated reasoning as simply—"a phenomenon where people arrive at a conclusion they want to arrive at.” Factors such as preference and identity (which can include both individual and group identity) – play into this particular way by which we reason. So, if we believe something to be true, we seek out particular evidence and use it in a way that justifies our belief or desire. This can be an unconscious process, but it is just as often a conscious one. However, even if we are aware of what we’re doing, we often don’t recognize it as a biased form of reasoning. Remember the title of Episode 1 of this podcast—“Feelings Come First?” Well, motivated reasoning is based in how we feel about a topic, how much we care about it, and how close it is to our identity. The Mental Health Matters website says that it allows our biases to affect how new information about a topic is perceived. Now, when we use good critical thinking skills, we’re using clear, solid, accurate evidence; we are willing to look at everything involved, carefully, and to let this evidence lead us to a conclusion that may or may not be what we thought it might be. And we are also open to the idea that new good, solid evidence might come along and we would need to rethink our conclusion at some point. But in goal-oriented motivated reasoning, this process is backwards; rather than objectively evaluating evidence, we use it to support conclusions we already think are, or might be, true. We’re starting with the idea that our belief is right-- and looking to justify it. So we take any evidence we find that “fits” that belief and use it to prove our point; and if evidence comes along that might disconfirm our belief, we either ignore it, deny it, or find some way to twist it to fit our needs. In motivated reasoning, we simply refuse to be wrong.

Music

PART 2: WHY DO WE DO IT?

So why do we do this? I’ve already mentioned one reason, and that is:

• Identity protection
  Our beliefs are often tied to who we are—our social groups, political affiliation, religion, our core values. To challenge one of those beliefs is to threaten a part of that identity. When someone’s identity isn’t threatened by the topic at hand, it’s more likely they would use good reasoning skills to come to a conclusion and seek the best answer. But if it’s about something that resonates strongly with a part of our identity, then we have an innate need to cling to our worldview as it relates to that topic. We are motivated to do whatever it takes to hold on to those ideas and MAKE them true. Because what would happen to us if we realized they weren’t true? Well, that leads us to the second reason:
• Emotion regulation
  Making sure our beliefs are the “right” ones by using motivated reasoning helps us avoid uncomfortable truths or unpleasant feelings—like guilt, shame, or fear. To do otherwise is to face cognitive dissonance, which is the mental discomfort that comes when you’re confronted with information that contradicts your beliefs. The potential consequences of recognizing you’re in error often involves feeling LOTS of mental discomfort, maybe having to make some admissions or apologies to other people, or even changing your lifestyle to fit a new understanding of the world. None of that sounds enjoyable, so we, often unconsciously, do everything we can to avoid those feelings and consequences.
• Then there’s cognitive economy
  As I say at the beginning of every episode, thinking is hard. Motivated reasoning is a mental shortcut that saves cognitive effort. It’s not necessarily a shortcut in the same way a heuristic is (that’s Episode 32, by the way), but we often utilize heuristics and cognitive biases to determine how to reach our goals, which is the point of goal-oriented motivated reasoning. Dr. Matt Grewitch, who studies the psychology of decision-making at Saint Louis University, says that lots of our decisions involve competing interests, and that we engage in motivated reasoning to try to balance those goals, but we often don’t think them through well enough and jump to conclusions, and the mental time and energy we save by doing so can result in poor decisions.
• And frankly, our evolutionary roots come into play here.
  Motivated reasoning is actually a feature, not a bug. Being part of a cohesive group was a critical component of early human survival, and it still is—we haven’t changed that much in the millennia since then. And a big part of our identity is bound up in the groups with whom we associate. That means we are likely to support, and echo, the beliefs of our group, and look for every opportunity to prove that those beliefs are the right ones to have.

PART 3: EXAMPLES OF MOTIVATED REASONING IN THE WILD 

Now we know what it is and why we do it. Let’s take a look at some examples of motivated reasoning in the wild. You might recognize someone you know; it might even be you.

• First, let’s take an example that you can probably relate to—buying a new car. For many people, a part of their identity is bound up in what kind of vehicle they drive (maybe not you, but definitely some people). They start looking for cars, and then fall in love with this beautiful, big loaded SUV that is way out of their price range, but now they want it, in fact they’ve concluded that this car is the correct one, and now they’re going to reason themselves, and maybe their significant other, into believing that this car needs to be in their driveway. They justify it with arguments like, yeah it’s expensive, but I can drive it for a decade, it’s a really high quality vehicle with a good service record, and possibly the most important reason--our neighbors will all be jealous when we drive home in it. Financially, they may put themselves in a bad position, but their emotional need for the car in the moment outweighs that. For them, the motivation to have this fabulous car is very strong.
• We also use motivated reasoning in some of our health decisions.
  It could be as simple as you’re trying to lose weight, so you get up early and exercise, but later in the day you say to yourself, “I ran 3 miles today; surely I can eat this whole sleeve of Ritz crackers and wash it down with a glass of chardonnay.” You’re motivated in the moment to indulge in your snack, so you justify it by saying you exercised, so it’s ok. Yeah, weight loss doesn’t work like that, but I keep hoping. If you can’t tell, Ive done something similar before. Now let’s take a health issue that’s not about me--smoking. Most smokers know that it’s associated with an increased possibility of lung cancer as well as other potentially fatal diseases. But it’s also an enjoyable habit for many people. This dichotomy--that it’s both pleasurable and dangerous—causes cognitive dissonance, which leads smokers to do things like avoiding any information that points out the dangers of smoking, while using common justifications for continuing to smoke like “I do it because it keeps me from gaining weight.” So they ignore good information and find any reason, no matter how flimsy, to keep smoking. Smokers downplay the health risks because it’s emotionally uncomfortable to face the truth. 
• And then of course motivated reasoning is used prolifically when it comes to political beliefs.
  People accept or reject facts depending on whether those facts align with their political ideology. For instance, take the birther controversy surrounding Barack Obama. Ample evidence was provided of the fact that he was born in Hawaii and therefore qualified to be President; however, a sizeable portion of Republicans continue to believe he was not, citing alternative birth records (none of which have been proven to be legitimate) or claims of inconsistency in official records and statements. Political motivations are at the heart of those conclusions; research has shown that political partisan identity is responsible for motivating birther beliefs. Need citation It’s also responsible for beliefs about climate change—about 70% of liberals believe that the extensive data collected over decades shows that the climate is changing and that human activity is a significant cause. Roughly the same percentage of conservatives, though, are more likely to think that humans are not responsible and that any data that points to it is flawed. They also tend to reject or downplay any new information that contradicts their beliefs, as well as seek out what they see as evidence that supports their viewpoint, a key part of motivated reasoning. After all, accepting that climate change is real and that we are the cause might require them to make major changes in their lifestyles to try to mitigate it, and that’s just unthinkable for many people. So as long as they are convinced that it’s not that bad, they don’t have to make any changes to their lives.
• And those examples lead us very nicely to the link between motivated reasoning and conspiracy theories!
  A 2015 paper in the American Journal of Political Science titled, “Conspiracy Endorsement as Motivated Reasoning,” posits the idea that believing in conspiracy theories is “a motivated process that serves both ideological and psychological needs.” According to the authors, someone who concludes that a certain conspiracy theory is real already has a particular ideological worldview that this conspiracy theory fits nicely into, so they use that theory as evidence that their worldview is correct. They also are motivated to protect that worldview so they’re going to ignore or discredit anything that doesn’t support it, and double down on it when confronted with obvious evidence that it isn’t the case. That’s why some people continue to believe that Sandy Hook was a hoax or that Hillary Clinton drinks the blood of children. Those ideas may seem extreme and highly unlikely to most people; however, not only do these theories feel “right” to conspiracy theorists, they are also under the mistaken impression that far more people believe in them than actually do. Nobel prize winner Gordon Pennycock conducted several studies that looked at this overconfidence, also called the false consensus effect. The results showed that while 12% of people might believe in a particular conspiracy theory, when the researchers asked those conspiracy theorists what percentage of the population also thought it was true, they said, on average, that 93% of people believed in it. So they often have a extremely skewed idea of the popularity of these theories. However, that belief imbues them with a sense of meaning and purpose and allow them to feel important; they feel like “legitimate actors,” and this allows them to rationalize both their beliefs and the behaviors that go along with them, giving them a sense of control over their world, and reinforces a narrative they’re already invested in. I’ll link to an article from YouGov, which is an online research data and analytics technology group, that shows the percentages of people that continue to believe in some of the most common conspiracy theories. Even though the majority of people surveyed don’t believe in them, despite what conspiracy theorists themselves think, the truth is that far more people believe them than really should. It’s a little unsettling, but it does speak to the power of motivated reasoning.

PART 4: HOW TO SPOT AND STOP IT (6–8 min)

If you haven’t figured it out by now, the truth is that we all use motivated reasoning. A lot. It helps us to feel better about ourselves and our ideas, it connects us to people who believe like we do, and it’s mentally economical. It’s a natural human tendency. But that doesn’t mean that we should just shrug our shoulders and say, “oh well, that’s just how I am.” We can all be better thinkers. Here are a couple of ways to counteract this tendency: 

• First, check your emotional temperature—Psychology Today says that you should avoid making decisions when experiencing intense emotions. Strong emotional reactions can be a clue that your reasoning is being hijacked by your need to be right. Ask yourself: ‘What evidence would change my mind?’ If the answer is “nothing,” you may be reasoning from the conclusion. You should try to recognize situations in which your motivation is to prove that you are right because the issue being discussed is something you feel very strongly about. It’s ok to step back and take a moment to calm down and consider what’s motivating you.
• Next, seek disconfirming evidence on purpose. It’s hard—but looking for counterarguments sharpens your thinking. You might want to play devil’s advocate with yourself, and write down a few reasons that support your conclusion, and a few reasons why it might be wrong.  Ivan Jureta, who holds a PhD in economics and management, studies motivated reasoning and how it affects decisions at the corporate level. He strongly suggests that when you go out of your way to seek evidence that doesn’t support your conclusion, you’re challenging your existing beliefs and assumptions, which is critical to reducing the impact of motivated reasoning and confirmation bias. He’s not saying you should consider every crazy theory that’s out there, but you should make sure that all plausible options are considered, and that the final option is supported by solid, objective criteria. Of course he's talking about corporate decisions here, but his advice is good for individuals as well.
• Third, review what it means to be a good critical thinker. I’ve talked so much about it in so many episodes that I’m not going to revisit it here. You can go back and listen to practically any of them and get a good understanding of what constitutes critical thinking. You might want to look at Episode 19, in which I discuss the scientific method as the ideal way to think critically. Science researchers do their best to factor out things like emotions or personal beliefs so those don’t affect the validity or reliability of their findings. While you can certainly come to decent conclusions without following the scientific method to the letter, reminding yourself of that process can help you make better decisions.
• Finally, you might try adding something called “reflective thinking” to the mix to help you evaluate your thinking processes. While critical thinking is systematic, analytical, and logical, and is essential for problem-solving and decision making, reflective thinking is more about introspection and self-examination. It focuses more on the “why”—as in “why do I want this to be the correct answer?” “Why is it important to me that others see me as an advocate for this idea?” This insight into your thoughts and behaviors can also improve your decision-making. I’ll link to a good article about reflective thinking if you want to learn more about it. Also, there’s a really fun and interesting website to explore called This vs That. It’s all about comparisons, and you can type any two things into its search engine and it will show you the similarities and differences between those things. I’ll link to a page on that site that explains the difference between critical and reflective thinking in the show notes.

CLOSING THOUGHTS (2–3 min)

• As we’ve learned, we’re all vulnerable to motivated reasoning. Becoming aware of it and working to mitigate its effects on our decisions is a big step towards better thinking.
• Next time you feel defensive about a belief, pause and ask yourself: Am I trying to get to the truth, or am I trying to be right at the expense of rationality? Check your emotions, look for reasons why you might be wrong, remind yourself of what good critical thinking looks like, and ask yourself why it’s so important for you to be right. Yes, all humans engage in motivated reasoning, but we can all take those steps to clearer, more rational thinking and better outcomes for ourselves and the people around us.
• Outro
  Thanks for joining me today. If you liked this episode, share it with someone who might find it helpful. And don’t forget to check out the show notes. Until next time, I hope you use the knowledge you’ve gained here to help you think it through.