Exploring motivated reasoning in polarization over the unfolding 2023 judicial reform in Israel

Abstract

This work explored polarization over Israel’s Judicial Reform, introduced in January 2023. We find that the reform divided people into pro- and anti-reform camps, which differed in characteristics such as institutional trust, patriotism, and national identity. For example, the camps disagreed about trust in the government versus the judiciary. In line with motivated reasoning—biased reasoning processes used to reach desired conclusions—people’s pre-existing characteristics motivated polarized views of the reform as a threat to democracy (issue-based polarization) and negative emotions towards opponents (affective polarization). Further demonstrating a motivated process, pro-reform participants (the electorate majority), prioritized majority rule over other democratic features (e.g., minority rights) compared to anti-reform participants. Polarization differentially predicted downstream consequences (e.g., protest methods), indicating that the camps’ reactions were motivated by the extremity of their views and negative emotions. This work extends the understanding of potentially motivated polarization processes and their immediate downstream consequences. Polarization can increase rapidly when motivated by pre-existing positions. People who supported and opposed the 2023 Judicial Reform in Israel differed in relevant characteristics, which in turn shaped their views and response to the reform.