IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v49y2019i03p1117-1140_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians

Author

Listed:
  • Baekgaard, Martin
  • Christensen, Julian
  • Dahlmann, Casper Mondrup
  • Mathiasen, Asbjørn
  • Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund

Abstract

Does evidence help politicians make informed decisions even if it is at odds with their prior beliefs? And does providing more evidence increase the likelihood that politicians will be enlightened by the information? Based on the literature on motivated political reasoning and the theory about affective tipping points, this article hypothesizes that politicians tend to reject evidence that contradicts their prior attitudes, but that increasing the amount of evidence will reduce the impact of prior attitudes and strengthen their ability to interpret the information correctly. These hypotheses are examined using randomized survey experiments with responses from 954 Danish politicians, and results from this sample are compared to responses from similar survey experiments with Danish citizens. The experimental findings strongly support the hypothesis that politicians are biased by prior attitudes when interpreting information. However, in contrast to expectations, the findings show that the impact of prior attitudes increases when more evidence is provided.

Suggested Citation

  • Baekgaard, Martin & Christensen, Julian & Dahlmann, Casper Mondrup & Mathiasen, Asbjørn & Petersen, Niels Bjørn Grund, 2019. "The Role of Evidence in Politics: Motivated Reasoning and Persuasion among Politicians," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 49(3), pages 1117-1140, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:49:y:2019:i:03:p:1117-1140_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123417000084/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Thomas Reindersma & Isabelle Fabbricotti & Kees Ahaus & Sandra Sülz, 2022. "Integrated Payment, Fragmented Realities? A Discourse Analysis of Integrated Payment in the Netherlands," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(14), pages 1-14, July.
    2. Kärnä, Anders & Öhberg, Patrik, 2022. "Misrepresentation and Migration," Working Paper Series 1445, Research Institute of Industrial Economics, revised 11 May 2023.
    3. Sebastian Blesse & Philipp Lergetporer & Justus Nover & Katharina Werner, 2023. "Transparency and Policy Competition: Experimental Evidence from German Citizens and Politicians," Rationality and Competition Discussion Paper Series 387, CRC TRR 190 Rationality and Competition.
    4. Martin Baekgaard & Nicola Belle & Søren Serritzlew & Mariafrancesca Sicilia & Ileana Steccolini, 2019. "Performance information in politics: How framing, format, and rhetoric matter to politicians’ preferences," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    5. Jozef N. Coppelmans & Fieke M. A. Wagemans & Lotte F. Dillen, 2024. "An empirical investigation of emotion and the criminal law: towards a “criminalization bias”?," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-17, December.
    6. Diana Arnautu & Christian Dagenais, 2021. "Use and effectiveness of policy briefs as a knowledge transfer tool: a scoping review," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 8(1), pages 1-14, December.
    7. Barbara Vis & Sjoerd Stolwijk, 2021. "Conducting quantitative studies with the participation of political elites: best practices for designing the study and soliciting the participation of political elites," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 55(4), pages 1281-1317, August.
    8. Wittels, Annabelle Sophie, 2020. "The effect of politician-constituent conflict on bureaucratic responsiveness under varying information frames," SocArXiv 4x8q2, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:49:y:2019:i:03:p:1117-1140_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/jps .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.