Rationalization and Cognitive Dissonance: Do Choices Affect or Reflect Preferences?
نویسندگان
چکیده
Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential theories in social psychology, and its oldest experiential realization is choice-induced dissonance. Since 1956, dissonance theorists have claimed that people rationalize past choices by devaluing rejected alternatives and upgrading chosen ones, an effect known as the spreading of preferences. Here, I show that every study which has tested this suffers from a fundamental methodological flaw. Specifically, these studies (and the free-choice methodology they employ) implicitly assume that before choices are made, a subject’s preferences can be measured perfectly, i.e. with infinite precision, and under-appreciate that a subject’s choices reflect their preferences. Because of this, existing methods will mistakenly identify cognitive dissonance when there is none. This problem survives all controls present in the literature, including control groups, high and low dissonance conditions, and comparisons of dissonance across cultures or affirmation levels. The bias this problem produces can be fixed, and correctly interpreted several prominent studies actually reject the presence of choice-induced dissonance in their subjects. This suggests that mere choice may not be enough to induce rationalization, a reversal that may significantly change the way we think about cognitive dissonance as a whole. * School of Management and Cowles Foundation, Yale University, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA. I would like to thank Dan Benjamin, Steven Berry, Paul Bloom, Judith Chevalier, Louisa Egan, Matthew Gentzkow, Philip Haile, Emir Kamenica, Edward Kaplan, Ulrike Muench, Emily Oster, Laurie Santos, Ryan Takasugi, Paul Tetlock, seminar participants at Cornell, and especially Daniel Gilbert, Barry Nalebuff, Benjamin Polak, Jane Risen and Jesse Shapiro for invaluable discussions during the writing of this paper. Comments are welcome at [email protected] or at 135 Prospect St., Box 208200, New Haven, CT 06520.
منابع مشابه
RATIONALIZATION AND COGNITIVE DISSONANCE: DO CHOICES AFFECT OR REFLECT PREFERENCES? By
Cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential theories in social psychology, and its oldest experiential realization is choice-induced dissonance. Since 1956, dissonance theorists have claimed that people rationalize past choices by devaluing rejected alternatives and upgrading chosen ones, an effect known as the spreading of preferences. Here, I show that every study which has tested thi...
متن کاملThe neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making.
People rationalize the choices they make when confronted with difficult decisions by claiming they never wanted the option they did not choose. Behavioral studies on cognitive dissonance provide evidence for decision-induced attitude change, but these studies cannot fully uncover the mechanisms driving the attitude change because only pre- and post-decision attitudes are measured, rather than t...
متن کاملIs choice a reliable predictor of choice? A comment on Sagarin and Skowronski
0022-1031/$ see front matter 2008 Elsevier Inc. A doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.026 DOI of original article: 10.1016/j.jesp.2008.08.027 q A response to Sagarin and Skowronski’s critique o * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (M.K. Chen (J.L. Risen). In a recent working paper, Chen (2008) argues that a methodology central to the cognitive dissonance literature (the free-cho...
متن کاملCognitive dissonance resolution depends on episodic memory
The notion that past choices affect preferences is one of the most influential concepts of social psychology since its first report in the 50 s, and its theorization within the cognitive dissonance framework. In the free-choice paradigm (FCP) after choosing between two similarly rated items, subjects reevaluate chosen items as more attractive and rejected items as less attractive. However the r...
متن کاملExplaining Preferences from Behavior: A Cognitive Dissonance Approach
The standard approach in positive political theory posits that action choices are the consequences of preferences. Social psychology—in particular, cognitive dissonance theory—suggests the opposite: preferences may themselves be affected by action choices. We present a formal framework that applies this idea to three models of political choice: (1) one in which partisanship emerges naturally in...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
عنوان ژورنال:
دوره شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 2008