Self-Deception
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Self-deception In a great book “The Mind of the Market: Compassionate Apes, Competitive Humans, and Other Tales from Evolutionary Economics”, the author, Michael Shermer, writes on cognitive dissonance. “In December 1954, the psychologist Leon Festinger and his colleaguesnoticed this newspaper headline: PROPHECY FROM PLANET CLARION CALL TO CITY: FLEE THAT FLOOD.A Chicago housewife, MarionKeech, reported that she had received messages from the planet Clarion telling her that the world would end in a great flood sometime before dawn on December 21, 1954. If she and her followers gathered together at midnight, however, a mother ship would arrive just in time to whisk them away to safety. Festinger immediately saw an opportunity, not to save himself, but to study the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, the mental tension created when a person holds two conflicting thoughts simultaneously. “Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart,” Festinger said. “Suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.” Many of Keech’s followershad quit their jobs, left their spouses, and given away their possessions. Festinger predicted that these individuals with the strongest behavioral commitment would be the least likely to admit their error when the prophecy failed and instead rationalize a positive outcome. As midnight approached on December 20, Keech’s group gathered to await the arrival of the aliens’ mother craft. As dictated by Marion, the members eschewed all metallic items and other objects that would interfere with the operation of the spaceship. When one clock read 12:05 A.M. on the twenty-first, anxious squirming was calmed when someone pointed out a second clock reading 11:55 P.M. But as the minutes and hours tickedby, Keech’s clique grew restless. At 4:00 A.M., Keech began to weep in despair, recovering at 4:45 A.M. with the claim that she had received another message from Clarion informing her that God had decided to spare Earth because of the cohort’s stalwart efforts. “By dawn on the 21st, however, this semblance of organization had vanished as the members of the group sought frantically to convince the world of their beliefs,” Festinger says. “In succeeding days, they also made a series of desperate attempts to erase “their ranklingsonance dis by making prediction after prediction in the hope that one would come true, and they conducted a vain search for guidance from the Guardians.” Marion Keech and her most devoted charges redoubled their recruitment efforts, arguing that the www.capitalideasonline.com Page - 1 Self-deception prophecy had actually been fulfilled with an opposite outcome as a result of their faith. Festinger concluded that Keech’s assemblage reduced the cognitive dissonance they experiencedby reconfiguring their perceptions to imagine a ,favorable outcome, reinforced by converting others to the cause. Doomsday cults are especially vulnerable to cognitive dissonance, particularly when they make specific end-of- the-world predictions that will be checked against reality. What typically happens is that the faithful spin-doctor the nonevent into a successful prophecy, with rationalizations including (1) the date was miscalculated; (2) the date was a loose prediction, not a specific prophecy; (3) the date was a warning, not a prophecy; (4) God changed his mind; (5) the prediction was just a test of the members’ faith; (6) the prophecy was fulfilled physically. but not as expected; and (7) the prophecy ,vas fulfilled-spiritually. Of course, cognitive dissonance is not unique to doomsday cults. We experience it when we hang on to losing stocks, unprofitable investments, failing businesses, and unsuccessful relationships. Why should past in- vestment influence future decisions? If we were perfectly rational, we should simply compute the odds of succeeding from this point forward, jettisoning our previous beliefs. Instead, we are stuck rationalizing our past choices, and those rationalizations influence our present ones. Unfortunately for those bent on curing themselves of the chronic effects of cognitive dissonance, research since Festinger shows that, if anything, he underestimated its potency. As two of Festinger’s students-Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson-demonstrate in their aptly titled book, Mistakes Were Made (but not by me), our ability to rationalize our choices and actions through self-justification knows no bounds. The passive voice of the all-telling phrase-mistakes were made-shows the rationalization process at work. In March 2007, United States attorney general Alberto R. Gonzales used that very phrase in a public statement on the controversial firing of several U.S. attorneys: “I acknowledge that mistakes were made here. I accept that responsibility.” Nevertheless, he rationalized, “I stand by the decision, and I think it was a right decision.”5 The- phraseology is so common as to be almost cliche. “Mistakes were quite possibly made by the administrations in which I served,” confessed Henry Kissinger about Vietnam, Cambodia, and South America. “If, in hindsight, we also discover that mistakes may have been made. I am deeply sorry,” admitted Cardinal Edward Egan of New York about the Catholic Church’s failure to deal with priestly pedophiles. And, of course, corporate leaders are no less susceptible than politicians and religious leaders: “Mistakes were made in communicating to the public and customers about the ingredients in our French fries and hash browns,” acknowledged a McDonald’s spokesperson to a group of Hindus and other vegetarians after they discovered that the “natural flavoring” in www.capitalideasonline.com Page - 2 Self-deception their potatoes contained beef byproducts. “Dissonance produces mental discomfort, ranging from minor pangs to deep anguish; people don’t rest easy until they find a way to reduce it,” Tavris and Aronson note.6 It is in that process of reducing dissonance that our self-justification accelerators are throttled up. One of the practical benefits of self-justification is that no matter what decisioin we make – to take this or that job, to marry this or that person, to purchase this or that product-we will almost always be satisfied with the decision, even when the objective evidence is to the contrary. Once the decision is made, we carefully screen subsequent information and filter out all contradictory data, leaving only evidence in support of our choice. This process of cherry-picking happens at even the highest levels of expert assessment. In his book Expert Political Judgment, the political scientist Philip Tetlock reviews the evidence for the predictive ability of professional experts in politics and economics and finds them severely wanting. To the point, expert opinions turn out to be no better than those of nonexperts-or even chance-and yet, as self-justification theory would predict, experts are significantly less likely to admit that they are wrong than are nonexperts. Politics is rampantly self-justifying. Democrats see the world through liberal-tinted glasses, while Republicans filter it through conservative – shaded lenses. Tune in to talk radio any hour of the day, any day of the week- whether it is “conservative talk radio” or “progressive talk radio” and you’ll hear the same current events interpreted in ways that are 180 degrees out of phase. Social psychologist Geoffrey Cohen quantified this effect in a study in which he discovered that Democrats are more accepting of a welfare program if they believe it was proposed by a fellow Democrat, even when, in fact, the proposal comes from a Republican and is quite restrictive. Predictably, Cohen found the same effect for Republicans, who were far more likely to approve a generous welfare program if , they thought it was proposed by a fellow Republican. Economic positions, whether staked out by birthright, inheritance, or creative hard work, distort our perceptions of reality as much as political positions. The sociologist John Jost has studied how people justify their economic status, and the status of others. The wealthy tend to rationalize their position of privilege as deserved, earned, or justified by their benevolent social acts, and assuage-any cognitive dissonance regarding the poor by believing that the poor are happier and more honest. For their part, the underprivileged tend to rationalize their position as morally superior, nonelitist, and within the bounds of social normalcy, and look down upon the rich as living an undeserved life of accidental or ill-gotten privilege. Cognitive distortions can even turn deadly. Wrongly convicting people and sentencing them to death is a www.capitalideasonline.com Page - 3 Self-deception supreme source of’ cognitive dissonance. Since 1992, the Innocence Project has freed fourteen people from death row, and exonerated convicts in more than 250 non-death row cases. “If we reviewed prison sentences with the same level of care that we devote to death sentences,” says University of Michigan lawfessor pro Samuel n. Cross, “there would have been over 28,500 non-death – row exonerations in the past 15 years, rather than the 255 that have in fact occurred.” What is the ‘self-justification for reducing this form of dissonance? “You get in the system and you become very cynical,” explains Rob Warden of Northwestern University School of Law. “People are lying to you all over the place. Then you develop a theory of the crime, and it leads to what we call tunnel vision. Years later. overwhelming evidence comes out that the guy was innocent. And you’re sitting there thinking, ‘Wait a minute.