Talk:Motivated reasoning

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cognitive science (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cognitive scienceWikipedia:WikiProject Cognitive scienceTemplate:WikiProject Cognitive scienceCognitive science articles

Education

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Student work

Untitled

Emotions[8] are a key component in motivation. Source 8 is from a time article. Find the primary source if you are citing here. Calebdroush (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2019 (UTC) CR[reply]

Suggestion 1 - clarify the Cognitive Strategy section in the lead paragraph (Matt & Marci)

Suggestion 2 - overuse of reference #3 (Everyone: check your references in your section and see if another reference works better, instead of #3)

Suggestion 3 - take out any references that are from magazines/newspapers, review the new/old references to see if they support article (Everyone: again, check the references in your section. Remove any that are from magazines/newspapers, and find references that support your section of the article)

Suggestion 4 - add a section on how researchers now believe that the two separate types of motivated reasoning are not so separate in the brain (Caleb -- I think this might be able to be added to your section or research and outcomes, or in the "Mechanisms" section, which would be Talbot and Lucretia)

Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you? "It appears to have only relevant sub-topics to explain the lead paragraph. It is distracting when something isn't explained better. This applies to 'cognitive strategy. Perhaps an example would help clarify it."
Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position? "The article is very neutral without making claims or trying to convince the reader in one way or another. They use the word 'bias' a lot and that needs to be looked at. Perhaps it could be said in other ways."
Are there viewpoints that are over-represented, or underrepresented? "It refers to reference #3 many times and does not refer evenly to the article references. I suggest that as a team we need to update the research and fine-tune it's use."
Check the citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article? "First, the links do work. The sources appear to support the claims made in the articles. There is the exception of poor references that came from magazines or newspapers, etc."
Is each fact supported by an appropriate, reliable reference? No, many but not all facts are supported by an appropriate, reliable reference. This should be gone over carefully by the team to make sure either the new or old references work well. Where does the information come from? "Most of the references are from peer-reviewed journal articles. They just need to be updated where needed." Are these neutral sources? The journal articles are neutral, but magazine, newspaper and lesson plan sources are usually biased plus do not fulfill the Wikipedia definition of good sources. If biased, is that bias noted? No, it isn't noted that it is a biased source.
Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that should be added? "It is true that some information needs to be brought up to date. It would be good to add a little section on how researchers now believe that the two separate types of motivated reasoning are not so separate in the brain." Lucretia ParkMamaluke78 (talk) 02:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaluke78 (talk • contribs)

This a peer review for your article "Motivated Reasoning." The article is very simple, yet concise. It does a good job at explaining the definition of motivated reasoning from the beginning, and then elaborating on the certain topics throughout the article. I liked that the paper was simple and easy to navigate and follow along. I didn't have to reread the article multiple times to understand what it was trying to say like I normally do with other articles. I would suggest adding a summary to the lead. That way people know what they are going to be reading and can refer back to the summary to remember and refresh their memory on what they read. I think the most important thing the author could do would be to add more to the lead, and talk about what is mentioned in the lead. There were some definitions/topics that were mentioned about motivated reasoning in the lead that were not clearly related to the topics in the article. I feel like we could apply the concept of keeping our article that we are reviewing simple and concise. Also, we could improve our lead and relate our article to our lead more. --Ulenui760 (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Free Thinkers would like to add the following reference to the Wiki article, Motivating Reasoning: Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection. Judgment & Decision Making, 8(4), 407–424. Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.uvu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=asn&AN=90209836&site=eds-live

This reference would be included in the section of Goal-oriented motivated reasoning with an expansion on Heuristic-driven information processing. MarciWilson (talk) 04:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)Marci Wilson[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 12 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Calebdroush, MattMattPSY, MarciWilson, Mamaluke78. Peer reviewers: Calebdroush, Talbot.chipman, Mamaluke78, Ulenui760, Taylorherr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 September 2021 and 20 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lnbiggs.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion

The current state of this article appears to be that a good start was made but not maintained. In particular there are references in the section "Goal-oriented motivated reasoning" that appear to have confused self-help books on motivation with the very different topic of motivated reasoning.

Also, this talk page is a mess. I moved the project header to the top where it belongs. --WriterArtistDC (talk) 21:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than attempt to fix apparent student comments that lacks normal formatting, I have placed them in a collapse box per talk page guidelines.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed off-topic content, cleaned up references, most of which are good.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most desired?

emotionally-biased reasoning to produce justifications or make decisions that are most desired rather than those that accurately reflect the evidence

I wonder if emotionally-biased reasons can work for a least desired outcome, like having an irrational fear and then identifying a false source of that fear to make it more real? Tom Ruen (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Motivated reasoning does not refer to positive or negative outcomes, but to the reduction of cognitive dissonance; maintaining a world view in the face of contrary evidence. One of the most famous examples of cognitive dissonance was end of the world cults, who were not relieved when the predicted date passed, but moved the end of the world to a later date to maintain their believe in a "desired" outcome. Justifying an irrational fear is not necessarily an example of cognitive dissonance.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of writing

This very important subject is, arguably, presented in barely comprehensible language -- more academic jargon and jibberish than plain-ENGLISH. As if to underscore the obscure-and-esoteric academic style of this not-very-encyclopedic article, many of the sentences are paragraph-sized, very poorly (and often incorrectly) composed and punctuated. It includes many run-on sentences, and un-separated phrases and clauses, which run together in a mind-numbing, almost-indecipherable string of text. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is a publication for the masses — not an insider's blog for the elite cognoscenti of a given field of study. See: WP:PLAINENGLISH.

~ Penlite (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Change section

Section alludes to motivated reasoning but only describes ignorance. Recommend editing to emphasise how motivated reasoning causes some to disregard evidence of climate change. This is a common topic in research so strong citation is also recommended. Previous comment deleted due to personal attack against author. TooManyFunFacts (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change

It's hilarious that in a topic about how people can irrationally believe something, there is a whole section about how climate change is true without an reasonable citations. 24.72.11.159 (talk) 18:48, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Theories of Persuasion

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2023 and 28 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aks163, Peerdrew12 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Caj94, Jerome0118, XenosisTwo.

— Assignment last updated by Franklyn101 (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]