Motivated reasoning and public opinion

Citizens, especially those who are knowledgeable and care the most about politics, are motivated to defend their beliefs and attitudes in the face of discrepant information. These motivated biases strongly influence the way people think about health care policies and the politicians and parties that propose or attack these contentious policies. Three cognitive mechanisms are identified: a prior belief effect, confirmation bias, and disconfirmation bias. Together, these information processes conspire to produce persistence and polarization of opinion on health care policies.     

Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs

We propose a model of motivated skepticism that helps explain when and why citizens are biased-information processors. Two experimental studies explore how citizens evaluate arguments about affirmative action and gun control, finding strong evidence of a prior attitude effect such that attitudinally congruent arguments are evaluated as stronger than attitudinally incongruent arguments. When reading pro and con arguments, participants (Ps) counterargue the contrary arguments and uncritically accept supporting arguments, evidence of a disconfirmation bias . We also find a confirmation bias —the seeking out of confirmatory evidence—when Ps are free to self-select the source of the arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization —the strengthening of t₂ over t₁ attitudes—especially among those with the strongest priors and highest levels of political sophistication. We conclude with a discussion of the normative implications of these findings for rational behavior in a democracy.     

The Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism: Old Wine in New Bottlenecks

This article examines the Gaza Reconstruction Mechanism (GRM) – the main institutional mechanism regulating the reconstruction of the Gaza Strip since the 2014 war. Proponents of the GRM hold that it is a crucial lifeline enabling the entry of humanitarian and reconstruction goods into Gaza while assuaging Israel’s security concerns. In contrast, this article argues that the GRM has introduced a bureaucratic and cumbersome mechanism that has created new bottlenecks that are impeding effective reconstruction and have institutionalized and depoliticized the siege of the Gaza Strip by passing the responsibility for its maintenance on to the international community.     

FATHERHOOD IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM: AN INNOVATIVE PROBLEM‐SOLVING APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM1

The article is a summary of the development of the District of Columbia Superior Court's Fathering Court Initiative. The Fathering Court Initiative is a problem‐solving court that has developed an innovative approach to child support cases that involves noncustodial parents returning from a period of incarceration. The program is designed to operate as a court based partnership between government and private sector organizations that match resources with family needs to promote responsible co‐parenting.