Sorting Fact from Fiction When Reasoning Is Motivated

Melis Kartal, Edoardo Cefala, Sylvia Kritzinger and Jean-Robert Tyran

No 12932, CESifo Working Paper Series from CESifo

Abstract: We combine a simple theoretical framework with a survey experiment to investigate how individuals sort fact from fiction and update their assessments in societally important but politicized topics, such as climate change and public health. We show that cognitive ability improves news discernment and in particular, the ability to make correct assessments that contradict one’s prior issue positions. However, when we disaggregate results by topic, higher cognitive ability sometimes amplifies motivated decision-making rather than attenuating it. Our framework and findings suggest a hard–easy pattern: more complex issues elicit greater motivated reasoning; simpler ones elicit less. In addition, overconfidence reduces responsiveness to new information, contributing to the persistence of misperceptions. Higher institutional trust appears to weaken motivated reasoning, suggesting that institutional quality may play an important role in constraining opinion polarization.

Keywords: misinformation; cognitive ability; motivated reasoning; overconfidence; online survey experiment; institutions (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: D72 D83 D91 I21 L82 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2026
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp12932.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ces:ceswps:_12932

Access Statistics for this paper

More papers in CESifo Working Paper Series from CESifo Contact information at EDIRC.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Klaus Wohlrabe ().