When Authority Fails: Epistemic Authority as the Missing Link Between Classical and Motivated Reasoning in Climate Misinformation

The debate between classical reasoning and motivated reasoning accounts of susceptibility to misinformation has reached an impasse. Classical reasoning theorists argue that analytic thinking generally improves truth discernment, whereas motivated reasoning theorists counter that identity‐protective goals can co‐opt cognitive sophistication. This review proposes that epistemic authority —which communities recognize as legitimate knowledge sources—serves as a candidate boundary condition that may help determine the dominance of each reasoning mode. We develop a dual‐function framework in which epistemic authority facilitates accuracy‐driven evaluation when the source is perceived as an epistemic in‐group member and triggers identity‐protective resistance when perceived as an out‐group member. Drawing on evidence from the Global South, particularly Indonesia, this study demonstrates that this framework reveals dynamics that are invisible in Western‐centric research, where religiosity and cultural norms structure epistemic authority rather than partisan ideology. Claim retrievability is an additional moderator that determines the tipping point between reasoning modes and outlines a research agenda with testable predictions. This integrative framework moves the field beyond the either/or debate toward specifying the social‐cognitive conditions under which accuracy motives prevail over identity‐protective ones.