Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Monkeys and Cognitive Dissonance

Posted by samzenpus on from the when-you're-right-you're-right dept.

Hugh Pickens writes "People deal with cognitive dissonance — the clashing of conflicting thoughts — by eliminating one of the thoughts. Psychologists have suggested we hone our skills of rationalization in order to impress others, reaffirm our "moral integrity" and protect our "self-concept" and feeling of "global self-worth." Now experimenters at Yale have demonstrated that other primates employ the same psychological mechanism. In one experiment, a monkey was observed to show an equal preference for three colors of M&M's and was given a choice between two of them. If he chose red over blue, his preference changed and he downgraded blue. When he was subsequently given a choice between blue and green, it was no longer an even contest — he was now much more likely to reject the blue. Rationalization is thought to have an evolutionary utility; once a decision has been made, second-guessing may just interfere with more important business. "We tend to think people have an explicit agenda to rewrite history to make themselves look right, but that's an outsider's perspective. This experiment shows that there isn't always much conscious thought going on," said one researcher."

8 of 229 comments (clear)

  1. I'm no behavioral researcher... by phoebusQ · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but frankly, I think these are some pretty heavy conclusions to draw from the discussed studies.

    1. Re:I'm no behavioral researcher... by prash_n_rao · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ... to humans.

      --
      This is not my sig.
    2. Re:I'm no behavioral researcher... by harves · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Um, if you read the summary, it explains that the second-half of the experiment involved a choice between blue or *green* M&Ms. You're right that the monkey has proven "red is safe" because it safely ate them. The monkey does not have any evidence that "blue is unsafe" at all, but when presented with a choice of blue or green, it consistently chose green. Why did it do that?

      The theory is that the monkey eliminated "blue" as a possibility in the first half of the experiment, and so continued to eliminate it in the second half. This is despite the fact that the monkey has obtained *no* information on blue or green M&Ms at that point. Green could be utterly lethal, while blue was always safe. Simple evolution is not the reason the monkey kept choosing "not blue".

    3. Re:I'm no behavioral researcher... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I see this all the time in the world.

      People make an arbitrary decision. And then they just stick with it.

      It's very hard to overcome their position with facts because it is not a logical decision. It is usually better to argue with the emotionally. If you can shift their emotions, they are more likely to shift their position.

      With facts they
      1) Request more facts
      2) Request impossible to gather amount of facts
      3) Keep forgetting or misunderstanding facts they do not "like"
      4) Discount facts (you have a total sales they dislike, they question the entire methodology for calculating the total).

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  2. Unconvinced by SpaceAmoeba · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm not so sure this is the same thing as what humans experience as cognitive dissonance, or it may only be a subset of the phenomenon. When people are employing cognitive dissonance there is actual work going on - they are not just making the same choice again, but rationalizing why that choice is the correct one and in the process deciding for it again. They are willful and not just sticking to a rut.

  3. Re:No I don't by IWannaBeAnAC · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sometimes you do this. But a heck of a lot of decisions (probably way more than you realize - for example whether to cross the street before or after that approaching car) are made at a more subconscious level. The `reasoning' comes later, for the purpose of justifying what you already chose.

  4. TFA says by j_w_d · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Initially the monkey did not have a preference. After being forced to decide between two of the three colours, once more allowed free choice, it exhibited biased behaviour. There was evidence. The change was apparently due to the coerced choice between two equipotentials. People would rationalize this later, trying to explain why "blue" wasn't as good. I would guess that a pretty interesting case could be made that the ability to break such ties is an evolutionary advantage. At base, tie breaking could be critical to survival. Imagine. The predator is behind you. Ahead the path forks. You know equally good ways of escaping the predator are available down each path. But if you stop to try and work out which is best, the predator will eat you while you hesitate. Afterward, because you survived the chase going down one path rather than the other, you will prefer that path. There's a lot of reinforcement for that preference, even if none of it is logical.

    --
    ------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
    1. Re:TFA says by martin-boundary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That doesn't quite make sense to me. If the two paths are equally good, why would you stop and work out which one is best? They are equally good, pick the left one, secure in the knowledge you made the right choice.