Motivated reasoning and elections – how clever communications can help

Heads up: Political nerd post coming in hot!

Years ago when I was thinking about what to focus my psych honours thesis on, I was reading a book called The Political Brain, by Drew Westen. (Strong recommend btw if you are interested in how rationality and emotion intertwine in politics). About a third of the way in, there is a reference to something called ‘motivated reasoning’. I was intrigued. What is that? So, I went down a google rabbit hole and popped out the other side with my honour thesis titled ‘Motivated Reasoning in Australian Voters’ and a new career in mind. Right now we are in the middle of a local government election (ACT) against the much larger backdrop of the US election circus. I find it fascinating to watch the motivated reasoning in action – in my friends, family, colleagues, the media, social media and even myself.

What is Motivated Reasoning?

In short, it’s the tendency for people to process information in ways that support their pre-existing beliefs and desires. It’s driven by emotions and personal identity rather than critical analysis and neutral evaluation of facts. It can manifest in two primary ways:

• Confirmation bias: seeking and giving more weight to information that supports one’s existing views.
• Disconfirmation bias: dismissing or critically scrutinising information that contradicts one’s beliefs.

Because elections are often emotionally charged, with voters deeply invested in the outcomes, this cognitive bias can significantly shape political behaviour, driving polarisation and making it difficult to reach consensus on key issues. Voters’ political identities are often tied to their sense of self, and studies have shown that we are much more likely to dismiss poor behaviour from our preferred candidate but are outraged at similar behaviour from their opponent. And it’s not just voters who are susceptible. Politicians are also prone to motivated reasoning, solidifying their beliefs in the face of contradictory evidence, as this 2019 study found. It’s hard not to despair!

At the time of my thesis research, I found that in the US, motivated reasoning was very evident, with clear lines between the red and blue teams. I suspect this has only increased, driven further by algorithms and filter bubbles (just read the CBS vs Fox news reporting of the recent presidential debate to find yourself in two very different worlds). In my research, I found it was more evident in Australian voters the further right or left we looked on the political spectrum. For example, Greens and One Nation voters were more likely to display it. This was back in 2013 – again, I suspect this might have increased but don’t have any firm evidence. Thesis idea anyone?

In short, motivated reasoning can make it very difficult to change people’s minds, even in the face of clear evidence. Arguably, this selective processing of information can undermine informed decision-making and weaken democratic processes.

How Communication Can Help Manage Motivated Reasoning

Though motivated reasoning presents significant challenges in elections, we can look at research from strategic communication can help counter its effects. The goal is not to force people to abandon their beliefs but to encourage more open-minded consideration of information. This is relevant not just if you are in the business of political communications, but if you are trying to develop communications in any policy space, especially if it’s even slightly contentious. And these days, what isn’t?

Five communication strategies to counter motivated reasoning

1. Frame information in line with the audience’s values

People are more likely to engage with information that resonates with their personal values. By framing messages in ways that align with voters’ priorities and concerns, communicators can reduce the likelihood of immediate rejection. For example, if a voter is concerned about economic issues, presenting environmental policies through an economic lens (e.g., job creation in the renewable energy sector) may help them engage more openly with the information.

2. Use trusted messengers 

Voters are more receptive to information from sources they trust, particularly if those sources align with their cultural or ideological background. Campaigns and communicators can use trusted figures—community leaders, celebrities, or respected local authorities—to convey important messages. When a trusted individual shares a piece of information, voters may be more likely to consider it, even if it challenges their pre-existing views. This is why politicians clamour for endorsements from key celebrities (shout out Taylor!) who can help convince their fan bases.

3. Encourage perspective-taking

Motivated reasoning thrives in environments where people view opposing political camps as enemies or threats. Encouraging voters to see issues from multiple perspectives can reduce hostility and foster more productive conversations. Communication strategies that promote empathy and shared concerns—such as highlighting common goals like economic stability, security, or healthcare—can help bridge ideological divides.

4. Focus on solutions, not just problems

Highlighting negative information without offering solutions can trigger defensive reasoning. Instead, communicators should focus on presenting solutions that address concerns across the political spectrum. By emphasising actionable steps and positive outcomes, messages can shift attention away from polarising debates and toward collaborative problem-solving.

5. In-group messaging

Like aligning to existing values and using trusted messengers, in-group messaging is about identifying a common ‘identity’ that resonates for your audience and using language, imagery and messages that speak to that common identity, rather than alienating people. Often, the more local the better – for example, highlighting our shared identity as ‘Canberrans’ rather than Australians and using in-jokes and terminology (Ken Berans) and tapping into local pride that will engage people across the city, despite their different political alignment.

Conclusion

Motivated reasoning is a powerful force in elections, shaping how voters interpret information and form opinions. It can feel almost impossible to cut through, especially when we are not only up against online info bubbles but our own brains trying to protect us from the discomfort of having to change our deeply held beliefs. As communicators we can look to behavioural science for ideas on how to frame and deliver messages so that we can keep chipping away at some of the most complex and critical issues of our time.

As we say at Elm, “People are wild” – and doesn’t it keep it interesting!?

If you want to nerd out more on all things political, I recommend this episode of Plain English, talking through the four biggest myths of political persuasion.