Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:25:11.723Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationalizations primarily serve reputation management, not decision making

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2020

Sacha Altay Open the ORCID record for Sacha Altay [Opens in a new window]  and
Hugo Mercier
Sacha Altay
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS, 75005Paris, France. [email protected]@gmail.comhttps://sites.google.com/view/sacha-altay/homehttps://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/
Hugo Mercier
Affiliation:
Institut Jean Nicod, Département d’Études Cognitives, École Normale Supérieure, EHESS, PSL University, CNRS, 75005Paris, France. [email protected]@gmail.comhttps://sites.google.com/view/sacha-altay/homehttps://sites.google.com/site/hugomercier/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We agree with Cushman that rationalizations are the product of biological adaptations, but we disagree about their function. The data available do not show that rationalizations allow us to reason better and make better decisions. The data suggest instead that rationalizations serve reputation management goals, and that they affect our behaviors because we are held accountable by our peers.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 43 , 2020 , e29
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

Baumeister, R. F. (1982) A self-presentational view of social phenomena. Psychological Bulletin 91(1):3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumeister, R. F. & Cairns, K. J. (1992) Repression and self-presentation: When audiences interfere with self-deceptive strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62(5): 851.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Briley, D. A., Morris, M. W. & Simonson, I. (2000) Reasons as carriers of culture: Dynamic versus dispositional models of cultural influence on decision making. Journal of Consumer Research 27(2):157–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959) Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 58(2):203–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gawronski, B. & Strack, F. (2004) On the propositional nature of cognitive consistency: Dissonance changes explicit, but not implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40(4):535–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidt, J. (2001) The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review 108(4):814–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Jordan, J. J., Sommers, R., Bloom, P. & Rand, D. G. (2017) Why do we hate hypocrites? Evidence for a theory of false signaling. Psychological Science 28(3):356–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kurzban, R. & Aktipis, A. (2007) Modularity and the social mind: Are psychologists too self-ish? Personality and Social Psychology Review 11(2):131–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leary, M. R. (1995) Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal behavior. Westview Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, D., Reinecke, R., Noveck, I. & Mercier, H. (2018) Saying, presupposing and implicating: How pragmatics modulates commitment. Journal of Pragmatics 133:15–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34(2):57–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mercier, H. (2012) The social functions of explicit coherence evaluation. Mind & Society 11(1):81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H. & Sperber, D. (2017) The enigma of reason. Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nisbett, R. E. & Wilson, T. D. (1977) Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes. Psychological Review 84(3):231–59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shafir, E., Simonson, I. & Tversky, A. (1993) Reason-based choice. Cognition 49(1–2):11–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonson, I. (1989) Choice based on reasons: The case of attraction and compromise effects. The Journal of Consumer Research 16(2):158–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. (2000) Metarepresentations in an evolutionary perspective. In: Metarepresentations: A multidisciplinary perspective, ed. Sperber, D., pp. 117–37). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tedeschi, J. T. & Rosenfeld, P. (1981) Impression management theory and the forced compliance situation. In: Impression management theory and social psychological research, ed. J. T. Tedeschi, pp. 147–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R. & Bonoma, T. V. (1971) Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist 26(8):685–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tetlock, P. E. (1992) The impact of accountability on judgment and choice: Toward a social contingency model. In: Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 25, ed. M. P. Zanna, p. 331–76. Academic Press. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60287-7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tice, D. M. (1992) Self-concept change and self-presentation: The looking glass self is also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 63(3):435–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vullioud, C., Clément, F., Scott-Phillips, T. & Mercier, H. (2017) Confidence as an expression of commitment: Why misplaced expressions of confidence backfire. Evolution and Human Behavior 38(1):9–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar