Salīdzināt metodes

	Partisan Motivated Reasoning Paradigm	Motivated Reasoning Experiment
Nozare	Politiskā psiholoģija	Politiskā psiholoģija
Saime	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
Izcelsmes gads	2006	2006
Autors	Charles Taber & Milton Lodge	Charles Taber & Milton Lodge
Tips	Experimental paradigm for directional reasoning	Survey/lab experiment
Pirmavots	Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.	Taber, C. S., & Lodge, M. (2006). Motivated skepticism in the evaluation of political beliefs. American Journal of Political Science, 50(3), 755-769.
Citi nosaukumi	Motivated Skepticism Paradigm, Directional Motivated Reasoning Design, Disconfirmation Bias Experiment, Partisan Bias Information-Processing Paradigm	Directional Motivated Reasoning Study, Biased Assimilation Experiment, Disconfirmation Bias Paradigm
Saistītās	3	4
Kopsavilkums	The partisan motivated reasoning paradigm is the experimental template for showing that citizens process political information to protect their existing loyalties rather than to reach accurate conclusions. In Taber and Lodge's foundational 2006 design, partisans who read balanced pro and con arguments rated congenial arguments as stronger, spent effort counterarguing uncongenial ones, sought out confirming information, and ended up more extreme than they began. Martin Bisgaard's later work extends the logic to facts, showing that even when partisans accept the same factual reality they reinterpret who deserves credit or blame, so getting the facts right can paradoxically fuel rather than dampen partisan reasoning.	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.