Subscribe
The latest psychology and neuroscience discoveries.
My Account
  • Mental Health
  • Social Psychology
  • Cognitive Science
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Neuroscience
  • About
No Result
View All Result
PsyPost
PsyPost
No Result
View All Result
Home Exclusive Cognitive Science

New research demonstrates that political ideology can taint logical reasoning

by Eric W. Dolan
October 2, 2022
in Cognitive Science, Political Psychology
Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
Don't miss out! Follow PsyPost on Bluesky!

New research provides additional evidence that political ideology can interfere with logical reasoning. The findings, published in the scientific journal Thinking & Reasoning, shed light on how politically motivated reasoning impacts the ability to correctly evaluate syllogisms.

A syllogism is a kind of logical argument that applies deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion based on two propositions that are asserted or assumed to be true. (“All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal.”) Syllogisms can be valid or invalid, depending on whether the conclusion follows logically from the premises. Importantly, the validity of a syllogism depends on the form of the argument, not on the truth of the premises.

“I have always been interested in the psychology behind political opinions and how people judge whether a politically laden statement is true or false. Studying the ability to identify logically valid conclusions on policy issues felt particularly important in the supposedly post-truth world we live in,” explained study author Julia Aspernäs, a PhD Student at Linköping University in Sweden.

The new study included a nationally representative sample of 1,005 Swedish adults. The participants first completed a brief training session to familiarize themselves with syllogisms. They were then shown a series of syllogisms and were asked to indicate whether the conclusion logically followed from the premises. The participants were explicitly instructed to disregard any beliefs about the content of the syllogisms and focus only on whether the argument was logically valid.

Syllogisms contained both non-political and political arguments. Non-political syllogisms included statements such as “If knthzor has two legs, then knthzor can not participate in Umpt; Knthzor can not participate in Umpt; Therefore, knthzor has two legs.” Political syllogisms included statements such as “If the labor market is not fair, then the state should intervene to equalize income. The labor market is not fair. Therefore, the state should intervene to equalize income.”

The syllogisms varied in logical validity (valid or invalid), difficulty, and ideology (left-leaning or left-leaning conclusion.) The political syllogisms also addressed a diverse set of issues, including labor markets, private health care, marketization of the school system, gender-neutral education, multiculturalism, military defense, asylum to refugees, and climate change.

The researchers found that participants tended to exhibit better accuracy in evaluating syllogisms when there was a match between the validity of the syllogism and the ideological position of the conclusion. Left-leaning participants performed worse on syllogisms where the correct answer was not aligned with leftist ideology, while right-leaning participants performed worse when the correct answer was not aligned with rightist ideology.

The findings indicate “that your judgment is likely tainted by a desire to believe what you want to believe,” Aspernäs told PsyPost. “Many of us would benefit from a greater ability to detect conclusions that rest on flawed argumentation.”

The results are in line with a previous study, published in 2020, which found that people more willing to accept logical conclusions that were consistent with their political beliefs compared to conclusions that were inconsistent.

In addition, another study published in 2019 has provided evidence that the ability to evaluate logical arguments was influenced by people’s political views. “Liberals were better at identifying flawed arguments supporting conservative beliefs and conservatives were better at identifying flawed arguments supporting liberal beliefs,” explained Anup Gampa of University of Virginia, a lead co-author of the study.

Aspernäs noted that ideology appears to interfere with logical reasoning regardless of whether a person holds right-wing or left-wing beliefs. “I would like to emphasize that we found flawed reasoning on both sides of the political spectrum, and that most of us engage in motivated reasoning from time to time albeit to varying extent,” she said.

The study, “Motivated formal reasoning: Ideological belief bias in syllogistic reasoning across diverse political issues“, was authored by Julia Aspernäs, Arvid Erlandsson, and Artur Nilsson.

TweetSendScanShareSendPinShareShareShareShareShare

RELATED

Researchers identify neural mechanism behind memory prioritization
Memory

Researchers identify neural mechanism behind memory prioritization

June 30, 2025

A new brain imaging study shows that when people try to remember multiple things, their brains give more precise attention to the most important item. The frontal cortex helps allocate memory resources, boosting accuracy for high-priority information.

Read moreDetails
Scientists show how you’re unknowingly sealing yourself in an information bubble
Cognitive Science

Scientists show how you’re unknowingly sealing yourself in an information bubble

June 29, 2025

Scientists have found that belief polarization doesn’t always come from misinformation or social media bubbles. Instead, it often begins with a simple search. Our choice of words—and the algorithm’s response—can subtly seal us inside our own informational comfort zones.

Read moreDetails
Muscle contractions release chemical signals that promote brain network development
Memory

Sleep helps stitch memories into cognitive maps, according to new neuroscience breakthrough

June 28, 2025

Scientists have discovered that forming a mental map of a new environment takes more than just recognizing individual places—it also requires sleep. The study highlights how weakly tuned neurons gradually become synchronized to encode space as a connected whole.

Read moreDetails
Radical leaders inspire stronger devotion because they make followers feel significant, study finds
Political Psychology

Radical leaders inspire stronger devotion because they make followers feel significant, study finds

June 28, 2025

A new study finds that voters are more motivated by radical political leaders than moderates, because supporting bold causes makes them feel personally significant—driving greater activism, sacrifice, and long-term engagement across elections in the United States and Poland.

Read moreDetails
Reduced pineal gland volume observed in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder
Cognitive Science

Neuroscientists identify key gatekeeper of human consciousness

June 27, 2025

Using rare brain recordings from patients, scientists found that the thalamus helps trigger visual awareness. The study reveals that this deep brain region sends synchronized signals to the cortex, acting as a gateway for conscious perception.

Read moreDetails
Girls as young as 8 show cognitive sensitivity to their own body weight, new study finds
Body Image and Body Dysmorphia

Girls as young as 8 show cognitive sensitivity to their own body weight, new study finds

June 25, 2025

Girls as young as eight show a unique sensitivity to numbers representing their body weight, a new study finds. The results highlight early gender differences in attention and raise questions about how body awareness develops and affects girls’ perceptions later in life.

Read moreDetails
Schoolchildren in classrooms where trees can be seen are less prone to aggression, defiance, and rule-breaking
Cognitive Science

Critical thinking and academic achievement reinforce each other over time, study finds

June 24, 2025

A new study has found that critical thinking and academic achievement build on each other over time in elementary school students, highlighting the importance of integrating thinking skills into classroom learning to support long-term educational growth.

Read moreDetails
Political ambivalence has a surprising relationship with support for violence
Authoritarianism

New study sheds light on the psychological roots of collective violence

June 21, 2025

A new study from Lebanon finds that people with authoritarian beliefs tend to oppose violence against political leaders, while those high in social dominance orientation are more likely to support violence against rival group members.

Read moreDetails

SUBSCRIBE

Go Ad-Free! Click here to subscribe to PsyPost and support independent science journalism!

STAY CONNECTED

LATEST

New study reveals how MDMA rewires serotonin and oxytocin systems in the brain

Ghosting and ‘breadcrumbing’: the psychological impact of our bad behaviour on dating apps

Older adults who feel criticized by loved ones are more likely to develop depression

New study exposes gap between ADHD drug use and safety research in children

People who are more likely to die seem to care less about the future

Researchers identify neural mechanism behind memory prioritization

Love addiction linked to memory and attention problems

Positive early experiences may buffer suicidal thoughts in those with trauma symptoms, new study finds

         
       
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Terms and Conditions
[Do not sell my information]

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In

Add New Playlist

Subscribe
  • My Account
  • Cognitive Science Research
  • Mental Health Research
  • Social Psychology Research
  • Drug Research
  • Relationship Research
  • About PsyPost
  • Contact
  • Privacy Policy