Between Dec 19, 2024 and Jan 2, 2025, datasets can be submitted to DRUM but will not be processed until after the break. Staff will not be available to answer email during this period, and will not be able to provide DOIs until after Jan 2. If you are in need of a DOI during this period, consider Dryad or OpenICPSR. Submission responses to the UDC may also be delayed during this time.

Browsing by Subject "Motivated reasoning"

Now showing 1 - 2 of 2
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    How Malleable Are Beliefs about Traits? Self-Theories About Traits as Motivated Reasoning After Reliving a Negative Self-Conscious Emotion
    (2019-07) Rogers de Alcerro, Jonathan Michael
    Recent studies have shown that beliefs about the malleability of one's personality traits can manifest as motivated reasoning within certain situations, but no studies have examined whether this motivated reasoning is a consequence of emotional states. Based on Gausel and Leach's (2011) model on negative self-conscious emotions, we investigated this possibility by asking participants to relive a moral failure from the past year where they felt either guilt, shame, rejected, or inferior. We hypothesized that reliving a feeling shame or guilt would motivate participants to describe the Big Five trait they attributed most as a cause of their past moral failure as more malleable than their least attributed trait. We also hypothesized that feeling rejected or inferior would motivate participants to act defensively by describing their most attributed trait as less malleable than their least attributed trait. Participants who relived feeling guilt tended to describe their most attributed trait as more malleable than their least attributed trait, but this was not true for participants who relived a feeling shame, rejection, or inferiority. These results suggest that feeling guilt can elicit motivated reasoning about the malleability of one's traits with implications beyond reparative behaviors following a moral failure.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Political disagreement and decision-making in American politics
    (2013-06) Sheagley, Geoffrey David
    This dissertation explores how political disagreement and disagreeable information shape the nature and quality of citizens' political judgments. People encounter disagreeable information on a routine basis, yet little is known about how exposure to this kind of information shapes people's political decision-making. I examine if and when exposure to political disagreement and disagreeable information leads people to make open-minded, accurate political judgments rather than closed minded, biased decisions. Using a series of experiments, I demonstrate that exposure to high levels of political disagreement can shape how people make judgments, and that, at times, it leads people to be more open-minded and accurate in their approach to decision-making. This research has important implications for understanding how inherent features of the democratic process shape the quality of citizens' judgments.