Compare methods
Review your selected methods side by side; rows that differ are highlighted.
| Motivated Reasoning Experiment× | Affective Polarization Measurement× | |
|---|---|---|
| Field | Political Psychology | Political Psychology |
| Family | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Year of origin≠ | 2006 | 2012 |
| Originator≠ | Charles Taber & Milton Lodge | Shanto Iyengar, Gaurav Sood & Yphtach Lelkes |
| Type≠ | Survey/lab experiment | Composite survey index |
| Seminal source≠ | Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769. DOI ↗ | Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology: A social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405-431. DOI ↗ |
| Aliases | Directional Motivated Reasoning Study, Biased Assimilation Experiment, Disconfirmation Bias Paradigm | Affective Polarization Index, Partisan Affect Gap, Thermometer Difference Measure |
| Related | 4 | 4 |
| Summary≠ | A motivated reasoning experiment tests whether people process political information to reach conclusions they are directionally motivated to hold rather than the most accurate ones. Building on Kunda's (1990) theory and crystallized by Taber and Lodge (2006), these designs expose partisans to attitude-congruent and incongruent arguments and measure biased assimilation, disconfirmation bias, attitude polarization, and selective exposure. | Affective polarization measurement quantifies the gap between how positively people feel toward their own political party (the in-party) and how negatively they feel toward the opposing party (the out-party). Iyengar, Sood and Lelkes (2012) showed that this affective divide has grown sharply even where issue positions have not, reframing polarization as a social-identity phenomenon of partisan like and dislike rather than ideological distance. |
| ScholarGateDataset ↗ |
|
|