{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/99166"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/99166","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Mind the gap: Issue positions, candidate preferences, and motivated reasoning in U.S. presidential elections","abstract":"Democratic norms suggest that voters should support candidates with whom they agree on the important issues of the day. When voters perceive disagreement between themselves and their preferred candidates, they often experience cognitive dissonance and react by engaging in motivated reasoning, changing their issue positions (via persuasion) and candidate perceptions (via projection) to rationalize their candidate preferences. Although motivated reasoning has been studied extensively in political psychology, most of these studies have been limited to single issues and single motivated reasoning processes, making it impossible to generalize about how individual voters approach cognitive dissonance in complex campaign environments when multiple issues and processes are in play. I develop a multi-issue, multi-process theory of motivated reasoning that accounts for the full range of tools voters have for justifying their discordant candidate preferences with respect to issue proximity. Using panel surveys from three U.S. presidential elections, I demonstrate that voters tend to spread their motivated reasoning efforts across issues and across processes. These motivated reasoning strategies are both more effective at reducing cognitive dissonance and more cognitively efficient, combining many small adjustments to voters' issue positions and candidate perceptions that add up to a substantial reduction in perceived voter-candidate disagreement. These findings have mixed implications for citizen competence and democratic accountability: multi-issue, multi-process motivated reasoning is less distortive of voters' political cognition than its single-issue or single-process counterparts, but it is also more intractable due to its lack of reliance on any one issue or process to rationalize candidate preferences.","abstract_html":"Democratic norms suggest that voters should support candidates with whom they agree on the important issues of the day. When voters perceive disagreement between themselves and their preferred candidates, they often experience cognitive dissonance and react by engaging in motivated reasoning, changing their issue positions (via persuasion) and candidate perceptions (via projection) to rationalize their candidate preferences. Although motivated reasoning has been studied extensively in political psychology, most of these studies have been limited to single issues and single motivated reasoning processes, making it impossible to generalize about how individual voters approach cognitive dissonance in complex campaign environments when multiple issues and processes are in play. I develop a multi-issue, multi-process theory of motivated reasoning that accounts for the full range of tools voters have for justifying their discordant candidate preferences with respect to issue proximity. Using panel surveys from three U.S. presidential elections, I demonstrate that voters tend to spread their motivated reasoning efforts across issues and across processes. These motivated reasoning strategies are both more effective at reducing cognitive dissonance and more cognitively efficient, combining many small adjustments to voters' issue positions and candidate perceptions that add up to a substantial reduction in perceived voter-candidate disagreement. These findings have mixed implications for citizen competence and democratic accountability: multi-issue, multi-process motivated reasoning is less distortive of voters' political cognition than its single-issue or single-process counterparts, but it is also more intractable due to its lack of reliance on any one issue or process to rationalize candidate preferences.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Kantack, Benjamin R"],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Rudolph, Thomas J.","Gaines, Brian J.","Kuklinski, James H.","Mondak, Jeffery J."],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2018,"date_issued":"2018-03-13T15:20:53Z","date_published":"2018-03-13T15:20:53Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:37Z","subjects":["Political psychology","voter decision-making","motivated reasoning","persuasion","projection"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Copyright 2017 Benjamin R. Kantack."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99166","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Rudolph, Thomas J.","Gaines, Brian J.","Kuklinski, James H.","Mondak, Jeffery J."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Kantack, Benjamin R"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2018-03-13T15:20:53Z","2020-03-14T09:15:25Z","2017-08-01","2017-12"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Political psychology","voter decision-making","motivated reasoning","persuasion","projection"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Copyright 2017 Benjamin R. Kantack."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99166"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Democratic norms suggest that voters should support candidates with whom they agree on the important issues of the day. When voters perceive disagreement between themselves and their preferred candidates, they often experience cognitive dissonance and react by engaging in motivated reasoning, changing their issue positions (via persuasion) and candidate perceptions (via projection) to rationalize their candidate preferences. Although motivated reasoning has been studied extensively in political psychology, most of these studies have been limited to single issues and single motivated reasoning processes, making it impossible to generalize about how individual voters approach cognitive dissonance in complex campaign environments when multiple issues and processes are in play. I develop a multi-issue, multi-process theory of motivated reasoning that accounts for the full range of tools voters have for justifying their discordant candidate preferences with respect to issue proximity. Using panel surveys from three U.S. presidential elections, I demonstrate that voters tend to spread their motivated reasoning efforts across issues and across processes. These motivated reasoning strategies are both more effective at reducing cognitive dissonance and more cognitively efficient, combining many small adjustments to voters' issue positions and candidate perceptions that add up to a substantial reduction in perceived voter-candidate disagreement. These findings have mixed implications for citizen competence and democratic accountability: multi-issue, multi-process motivated reasoning is less distortive of voters' political cognition than its single-issue or single-process counterparts, but it is also more intractable due to its lack of reliance on any one issue or process to rationalize candidate preferences.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2019-12-01","The student, Benjamin Kantack, accepted the attached license on 2017-08-01 at 10:41.","The student, Benjamin Kantack, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-08-01 at 10:46.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-08-01 at 16:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11586 on 2018-03-13 at 09:54:27","Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-13T15:20:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 KANTACK-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 563362 bytes, checksum: 151f5d0a66a4fb803c7ee950ac74f501 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4213 bytes, checksum: 8f803533ca89ae7c8abcce611146c574 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4559 bytes, checksum: e048a359089bb7b6f282cd874fa59183 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-01","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:21:19Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:25:40Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:28:52Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 105128 on 2020-03-14T09:15:25Z."]},{"key":"dc:format","label":"Dc Format","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Mind the gap: Issue positions, candidate preferences, and motivated reasoning in U.S. presidential elections"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Rudolph, Thomas J.","Gaines, Brian J.","Kuklinski, James H.","Mondak, Jeffery J."],"dc:creator":["Kantack, Benjamin R"],"dc:date":["2018-03-13T15:20:53Z","2020-03-14T09:15:25Z","2017-08-01","2017-12"],"dc:description":["Democratic norms suggest that voters should support candidates with whom they agree on the important issues of the day. When voters perceive disagreement between themselves and their preferred candidates, they often experience cognitive dissonance and react by engaging in motivated reasoning, changing their issue positions (via persuasion) and candidate perceptions (via projection) to rationalize their candidate preferences. Although motivated reasoning has been studied extensively in political psychology, most of these studies have been limited to single issues and single motivated reasoning processes, making it impossible to generalize about how individual voters approach cognitive dissonance in complex campaign environments when multiple issues and processes are in play. I develop a multi-issue, multi-process theory of motivated reasoning that accounts for the full range of tools voters have for justifying their discordant candidate preferences with respect to issue proximity. Using panel surveys from three U.S. presidential elections, I demonstrate that voters tend to spread their motivated reasoning efforts across issues and across processes. These motivated reasoning strategies are both more effective at reducing cognitive dissonance and more cognitively efficient, combining many small adjustments to voters' issue positions and candidate perceptions that add up to a substantial reduction in perceived voter-candidate disagreement. These findings have mixed implications for citizen competence and democratic accountability: multi-issue, multi-process motivated reasoning is less distortive of voters' political cognition than its single-issue or single-process counterparts, but it is also more intractable due to its lack of reliance on any one issue or process to rationalize candidate preferences.","Submission published under a 24 month embargo labeled 'U of I Access', the embargo will last until 2019-12-01","The student, Benjamin Kantack, accepted the attached license on 2017-08-01 at 10:41.","The student, Benjamin Kantack, submitted this Dissertation for approval on 2017-08-01 at 10:46.","This Dissertation was approved for publication on 2017-08-01 at 16:33.","DSpace SAF Submission Ingestion Package generated from Vireo submission #11586 on 2018-03-13 at 09:54:27","Made available in DSpace on 2018-03-13T15:20:53Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 3 KANTACK-DISSERTATION-2017.pdf: 563362 bytes, checksum: 151f5d0a66a4fb803c7ee950ac74f501 (MD5) LICENSE.txt: 4213 bytes, checksum: 8f803533ca89ae7c8abcce611146c574 (MD5) PROQUEST_LICENSE.txt: 4559 bytes, checksum: e048a359089bb7b6f282cd874fa59183 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2017-08-01","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:21:19Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:25:40Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 105128 Lift date: 2020-03-13T15:28:52Z Reason: Author requested U of Illinois access only (OA after 2yrs) in Vireo ETD system","U of I Only Restriction Lifted for Item 105128 on 2020-03-14T09:15:25Z."],"dc:format":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/99166"],"dc:language":["en"],"dc:rights":["Copyright 2017 Benjamin R. Kantack."],"dc:subject":["Political psychology","voter decision-making","motivated reasoning","persuasion","projection"],"dc:title":["Mind the gap: Issue positions, candidate preferences, and motivated reasoning in U.S. presidential elections"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:24:37Z"}