Triangulating Political Responsibility: The Motivated Formation of Responsibility Judgments

149 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Learning More from Political Communication Experiments: Pretreatment and Its Effects (2012, background): “Strong attitudes often lead to motivated reasoning where individuals avoid, ignore, or reject information that is inconsistent with their prior opinions (e.g., Druckman and Bolsen 2011; Druckman et al. 2010; Kunda 2001; Lodge and Taber 2000; Redlawsk 2002; Rudolph 2006).”
The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments (2009, result): “First, we replicate using a broader range of political issues and arguments several key findings: (1) an attitude congruency bias, where people evaluate arguments and evidence that support their priors as stronger and more compelling than contrary arguments (Redlawsk 2002; Rudolph 2006; Taber and ”
An Information Processing Theory of Ambivalence (2007, background): “Research has shown that such individuals devalue objective information that conflicts with their partisan affect when making political judgments (Rudolph, 2006).”