Motivated Reasoning

Cognitive biases are patterns of thinking that deviate systematically from evidence-based reasoning. Scientists have uncovered nearly 200 cognitive biases experimentally, though many might be closely related to each other. In the workplace, in any activity that requires careful judgment based on reliable situational assessment, cognitive biases create significant risk of compromising either decision quality, or communication reliability, or both.

The risk of poor decisions or unreliable communications is elevated when the time scale of the decision process is short, as in high-stakes discussions, heated debate, and emergencies. Methods for mitigating that risk are therefore valuable. But how can we possibly protect ourselves against the effects of 200 cognitive biases?

On a one-by-one basis — cognitive bias by cognitive bias — risk mitigation is difficult. There are too many cognitive biases. But we can become familiar with patterns of working and thinking that increase our vulnerability to cognitive biases. When we notice the indicators of these patterns, we can be alert to the risk of cognitive biases. Motivated reasoning [Kunda 1990] [Molden 2005] is one of those patterns.

Motivated reasoning, also known as motivated thinking, is a pattern of thinking that we use to reach conclusions we prefer by means of what appears to be evidence-based reasoning, but which might actually be nothing of the kind. We also use motivated reasoning to avoid reaching or to defer reaching conclusions that we'd rather not reach. Consider this example:

Suppose you have an outdoor activity to do tomorrow. And you really can't do it in rainy conditions. As you're making plans for tomorrow, how often do you check tomorrow's weather forecast during the afternoon today and during the evening?

Research shows that in such a scenario, people who regard the activity as desirable will, on average, check the forecast more often if the forecast is unfavorable. And people who regard the activity as undesirable will, on average, check the forecast more often if the forecast is favorable. In other words, data gathering is less intensive when the data indicates a favored result, and more intensive when the data indicates a disfavored result.

In this example, the existence of a preference affects the decision process. The preference provides a motivation that biases the decision, even though the actions undertaken seem consistent with unbiased, evidence-based reasoning.

In the workplace, motivated reasoning masquerades as reasonableness and probity. In that disguise motivated reasoning enables us to fool ourselves into believing that we're thinking and reasoning objectively when we are not. [Noval 2019] [Boiney 1997] Motivated reasoning is effective — counter-effective, actually — because it facilitates departure from evidence-based reasoning in two important ways.

Deceiving discourse participants

Because motivated reasoning is so superficially similar to evidence-based reasoning, it can conceal the effects of cognitive biases. Subjected to motivated reasoning, people come to believe that they're following an evidence-based argument. This leads them to the impression that they're engaged in critical thinking when they are not. Motivated reasoning suppresses our sensitivity to sources of bias in our decision processes.

Consuming resources

Any discourse Any discourse requires the time
and the energy of the participants.
The specious arguments of motivated
reasoning consume both.requires two resources: the time of the participants, and the energy of the participants. The specious arguments of motivated reasoning consume both of these resources. For example, most meetings have defined duration. Time is limited for the meeting and for its agenda items. Participant energy is also limited. Participants who want to attend to an evidence-based argument must share the time and energy resources with those who put forth arguments based on motivated reasoning. And when they do have the floor, they must spend some of their time dealing with the effects and distractions of motivated reasoning. Thus motivated reasoning both establishes specious conclusions and obstructs the establishment of more legitimate conclusions. Meetings can be extended, and deadlines relaxed, up to a point. But time lost to motivated reasoning is lost nevertheless.

All this would be enough to qualify motivated reasoning as one of the more destructive cognitive processes, but there is more. The most devious among us use motivated reasoning to deal with others who might be or might become clear-thinking opponents who might refute deceptive arguments. Using motivated reasoning, these devious individuals convert others into unwitting accomplices who then help to propagate deception.

In the context of motivated reasoning, some cognitive biases are more likely to arise than others. These biases include Attribute Substitution, Hindsight Bias, Confirmation Bias, Self-serving Bias, and the Pseudocertainty Effect. In the next post of this series, I'll discuss how Motivated Reasoning can increase our vulnerability to the Pseudocertainty Effect. First in this series  Next in this series  Top    Next Issue

Is every other day a tense, anxious, angry misery as you watch people around you, who couldn't even think their way through a game of Jacks, win at workplace politics and steal the credit and glory for just about everyone's best work including yours? Read 303 Secrets of Workplace Politics, filled with tips and techniques for succeeding in workplace politics. More info

Footnotes

Your comments are welcome

About Point Lookout

Thank you for reading this article. I hope you enjoyed it and found it useful, and that you'll consider recommending it to a friend.

This article in its entirety was written by a human being. No machine intelligence was involved in any way.

Point Lookout is a free weekly email newsletter. Browse the archive of past issues. Subscribe for free.

Support Point Lookout by joining the Friends of Point Lookout, as an individual or as an organization.

Do you face a complex interpersonal situation? Send it in, anonymously if you like, and I'll give you my two cents.

Related articles

More articles on Cognitive Biases at Work:

Perfectionism and Avoidance

Avoiding tasks we regard as unpleasant, boring, or intimidating is a pattern known as procrastination. Perfectionism is another pattern. The interplay between the two makes intervention a bit tricky.

Seven Planning Pitfalls: II

Plans are well known for working out differently from what we intended. Sometimes, the unintended outcome is due to external factors over which the planning team has little control. Two examples are priming effects and widely held but inapplicable beliefs.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: I

Planners and members of planning teams are susceptible to patterns of thinking that lead to unworkable plans. But planning teams also suffer vulnerabilities. Two of these are Group Polarization and Trips to Abilene.

Seven More Planning Pitfalls: II

Planning teams, like all teams, are susceptible to several patterns of interaction that can lead to counter-productive results. Three of these most relevant to planners are False Consensus, Groupthink, and Shared Information Bias.

Additive Bias…or Not: I

When we alter existing systems to enhance them, we tend to favor adding components even when subtracting might be better. This effect has been attributed to a cognitive bias known as additive bias. But other forces more important might be afoot.

See also Cognitive Biases at Work and Cognitive Biases at Work for more related articles.

Forthcoming issues of Point Lookout

Coming January 22: Storming: Obstacle or Pathway?

The Storming stage of Tuckman's model of small group development is widely misunderstood. Fighting the storms, denying they exist, or bypassing them doesn't work. Letting them blow themselves out in a somewhat-controlled manner is the path to Norming and Performing. Available here and by RSS on January 22.

And on January 29: A Framework for Safe Storming

The Storming stage of Tuckman's development sequence for small groups is when the group explores its frustrations and degrees of disagreement about both structure and task. Only by understanding these misalignments is reaching alignment possible. Here is a framework for this exploration. Available here and by RSS on January 29.

Coaching services

I offer email and telephone coaching at both corporate and individual rates. Contact Rick for details at rbrenjTnUayrCbSnnEcYfner@ChacdcYpBKAaMJgMalFXoCanyon.com or (650) 787-6475, or toll-free in the continental US at (866) 378-5470.

Get the ebook!

Past issues of Point Lookout are available in six ebooks:

• Get 2001-2 in Geese Don't Land on Twigs (PDF, )
• Get 2003-4 in Why Dogs Wag (PDF, )
• Get 2005-6 in Loopy Things We Do (PDF, )
• Get 2007-8 in Things We Believe That Maybe Aren't So True (PDF, )
• Get 2009-10 in The Questions Not Asked (PDF, )
• Get all of the first twelve years (2001-2012) in The Collected Issues of Point Lookout (PDF, )

Are you a writer, editor or publisher on deadline? Are you looking for an article that will get people talking and get compliments flying your way? You can have 500-1000 words in your inbox in one hour. License any article from this Web site. More info