{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019871420222092345, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.820717131474104, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Ideological Asymmetries in Motivated Reasoning and the Mechanisms of Attitude Polarization: A Two-Wave Survey Experiment

Are there specific motives that lead individuals to become extreme in their political attitudes after exposure to information? Can these motives explain recent evidence that attitude polariza-tion occurs more on the conservative than the liberal side? We propose that two mechanisms, related to relational motives to engage in social conformity and epistemic motives to reduce uncertainty, might contribute to answering these questions. We used experimental manipula-tions to induce relational and epistemic motives in a two-wave survey experiment, in which we exposed participants to balanced information pertaining highly salient political issues in the U.S. Our results suggest that relational motives to maintain homogenous social networks are highly pertinent to how people, especially political conservatives, process information and make up their minds about important social and political issues. When exposed to social cues indicating where liberals and conservatives stand on specific issues, the two groups became fur-ther apart in their attitudes. Furthermore, we observed that, in the presence of social cues, con-servatives were more likely to develop extreme attitudes than liberals, triggering asymmetric polarization. Contrary to our predictions, however, we did not obtain consistent evidence of in-creased ideological polarization when epistemic motives to reduce uncertainty were present, although we found that conservatives (and not liberals) displayed a stronger confirmation bias in the evaluation of political arguments when uncertainty was high (compared to low).