Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T02:00:21.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationalization is rare, reasoning is pervasive

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Audun Dahl Open the ORCID record for Audun Dahl [Opens in a new window]  and
Talia Waltzer
Audun Dahl
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064. [email protected]@ucsc.eduhttps://esil.ucsc.edu/people/audun-dahl/https://sites.google.com/site/taliawaltzer/
Talia Waltzer
Affiliation:
Psychology Department, University of California, Santa Cruz, CA95064. [email protected]@ucsc.eduhttps://esil.ucsc.edu/people/audun-dahl/https://sites.google.com/site/taliawaltzer/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

If rationalization were ubiquitous, it would undermine a fundamental premise of human discourse. A review of key evidence indicates that rationalization is rare and confined to choices among comparable options. In contrast, reasoning is pervasive in human decision making. Within the constraints of reasoning, rationalization may operate in ambiguous situations. Studying these processes requires careful definitions and operationalizations.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e33
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adler, J. E. & Rips, L. J. (eds.). (2008) Reasoning: Studies of human inference and its foundations. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (2005) The influence of attitudes on behavior. In The handbook of attitudes (pp. 173–221). Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. (2017) Ecological commitments: Why developmental science needs naturalistic methods. Child Development Perspectives 11(2):79–84. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12217.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, A. (2019) The science of early moral development: On defining, constructing, and studying morality from birth. Advances in Child Development and Behavior 56:1–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.acdb.2018.11.001.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dahl, A., Gingo, M., Uttich, K. & Turiel, E. (2018) Moral reasoning about human welfare in adolescents and adults: Judging conflicts involving sacrificing and saving lives. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Serial No. 330, 83(3):1–109.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. & Killen, M. (2018) Moral reasoning: Theory and research in developmental science. In: The Stevens’ handbook of experimental psychology and cognitive neuroscience, 4th edition, ed. Wixted, J. T. & Ghetti, S., pp. 323–53. Wiley.Google Scholar
Dahl, A. & Waltzer, T. (2018) Moral disengagement as a psychological construct. American Journal of Psychology 131:240–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harman, G. (1986) Change in view: Principles of reasoning. MIT Press.Google Scholar
Henrich, J. & Henrich, N. (2010) The evolution of cultural adaptations: Fijian food taboos protect against dangerous marine toxins. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 277(1701):3715–24. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2010.1191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krosnick, J. A. (1999) Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology 50:537–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, J. I. & Funder, D. C. (2004) Towards a balanced social psychology: Causes, consequences, and cures for the problem-seeking approach to social behavior and cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 27(3):313–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landy, J. F. & Goodwin, G. P. (2015) Does incidental disgust amplify moral judgment? A meta-analytic review of experimental evidence. Perspectives on Psychological Science 10(4):518–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pizarro, D. A., Inbar, Y. & Helion, C. (2011) On disgust and moral judgment. Emotion Review 3(3):267–68. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073911402394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royzman, E. & Hagan, J. P. (2017) The shadow and the tree: Inference and transformation of cognitive content in psychology of moral judgment. In: Moral inferences, ed. Bonefon, J.-F. & Trémolière, B., pp. 56–74. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Sharot, T., Velasquez, C. M. & Dolan, R. J. (2010) Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice. Psychological Science 21(9):1231–35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797610379235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spencer, J. P., Blumberg, M. S., McMurray, B., Robinson, S. R., Samuelson, L. K. & Tomblin, J. B. (2009) Short arms and talking eggs: Why we should no longer abide the nativist–empiricist debate. Child Development Perspectives 3(2):79–87. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2009.00081.x.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turiel, E. (2010) Snap judgment? Not so fast: Thought, reasoning, and choice as psychological realities. Human Development 53(3):105–109. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1159/000315167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Turiel, E. & Dahl, A. (2019) The development of domains of moral and conventional norms, coordination in decision-making, and the implications of social opposition. In: The normative animal: On the biological significance of social, moral, and linguistic norms, ed. Bayertz, K. & Boughley, N., pp. 195–213. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wheatley, T. & Haidt, J. (2005) Hypnotic disgust makes moral judgments more severe. Psychological Science 16(10):780–84.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed