Set the constraint: what conclusions would you not accept?

Pre-define which conclusions would be embarrassing, then monitor whether your reasoning is steering away from them.

Why it works

Kunda’s model specifies that motivated reasoning operates under a "subjective validity" constraint: people accept only conclusions they can justify to themselves. Making the desired conclusion explicit — especially the conclusions you would find embarrassing if you reached them — gives you a reference point against which to evaluate whether your reasoning is being steered. You are essentially building an internal watchdog by naming what the watchdog should look for.

How to do it

1. Before analyzing a question, list the two or three conclusions you would most prefer not to reach.
2. Note them and set them aside while you do the actual analysis.
3. After reaching a conclusion, check: is this one of the embarrassing ones? If it is, was your reasoning as rigorous as it would have been otherwise?

Evidence

Consistent with Kunda’s model, which formally accounts for the subjective validity constraint as part of the motivated reasoning mechanism. (mechanistic)

This is a derived heuristic from the theoretical model rather than a separately tested debiasing technique.

Sources

• Kunda (1990), "The case for motivated reasoning," Psychological Bulletin

Common mistake

Listing the embarrassing conclusions after you have already done the analysis, at which point your memory of the reasoning process will be selectively filtered to look more objective than it was.