Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection
复制标题
意识形态、动机推理和认知反思
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
影响因子：
2.5
通讯作者：
D. Kahan
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Kahan
决策科学家已经确定了气候变化、枪支暴力、国家安全等问题上意识形态两极分化的各种可能来源，这些问题都依赖于经验证据。本文介绍了其中三个研究：占主导地位的政治驱动的信息处理的公众成员;意识形态动机的推理;和认知风格的相关性的政治保守主义。这项研究产生的观察和实验数据与政治保守主义与不反思思维或动机性推理明显相关的假设不一致。在认知反思测试（Frederick，2005）中，保守派的表现并不比自由派好或差，认知反思测试是一项与认知偏见相关的信息处理倾向的客观测量。此外，研究发现，意识形态动机的推理并不是过度依赖启发式或直觉形式的推理的结果。相反，在认知反思中得分最高的受试者最有可能表现出意识形态动机的认知。这些发现证实了一个备择假设，它确定了意识形态动机的认知作为一种形式的信息处理，促进个人的兴趣，形成和保持的信念，表示他们的忠诚，重要的亲和力群体。本文讨论了这些研究结果的实际意义，包括需要制定科学传播战略，保护政策相关的事实，使其不受影响，成为政治身份的分裂符号。
Decision scientists have identified various plausible sources of ideological polarization over climate change, gun violence, national security, and like issues that turn on empirical evidence. This paper describes a study of three of them: the predominance of heuristic-driven information processing by members of the public; ideologically motivated reasoning; and the cognitive-style correlates of political conservativism. The study generated both observational and experimental data inconsistent with the hypothesis that political conservatism is distinctively associated with either unreflective thinking or motivated reasoning. Conservatives did no better or worse than liberals on the Cognitive Reflection Test (Frederick, 2005), an objective measure of information-processing dispositions associated with cognitive biases. In addition, the study found that ideologically motivated reasoning is not a consequence of over-reliance on heuristic or intuitive forms of reasoning generally. On the contrary, subjects who scored highest in cognitive reflection were the most likely to display ideologically motivated cognition. These findings corroborated an alternative hypothesis, which identifies ideologically motivated cognition as a form of information processing that promotes individuals’ interests in forming and maintaining beliefs that signify their loyalty to important affinity groups. The paper discusses the practical significance of these findings, including the need to develop science communication strategies that shield policy-relevant facts from the influences that turn them into divisive symbols of political identity.
影响因子：
7.6
作者：
CHAIKEN, S;MAHESWARAN, D
通讯作者：
MAHESWARAN, D