A popular view in public opinion research is that voters’ political beliefs are incoherent and unstable over time. However, survey respondents are typically asked to report positions on complex policy issues without space for contemplation or justification. When providing quick-fire, top-of-the-head responses, it is unsurprising that voters express contradictory beliefs, or give responses that can vary haphazardly over time. Drawing on prominent models of survey response, and dual-process theories from social psychology, I argue that articulating justifications gives people reason to slow down and consider their line of thought more fully. I hypothesise that when prompted to provide justifications before stating their political positions, respondents will report attitudes that are more consistent across issues and more stable over time. I describe an experimental design and associated modelling approach to test these expectations.