Investigating the Self-Standards Model of Defensive Self-Justification

University Of Arizona, Tucson AZ

Investigators

Abstract

Why do otherwise intelligent and well-adjusted individuals, like the CEOs of major corporations, engage in immoral or foolish behavior, but then fail to learn from their mistakes and make amends for their transgressions? According to the well-known theory of Cognitive Dissonance, discrepancies between behavior and important attitudes or beliefs cause people to feel discomfort (i.e., cognitive dissonance) that they are motivated to reduce. Research indicates, however, that people do not always reduce their discomfort by owning up to the discrepancy. Instead, they reduce their discomfort by rationalizing or justifying their behavior -- that is, by changing their attitudes or beliefs to accommodate the undesirable outcome. Indeed, decades of research show that to reduce dissonance, people can convince themselves that their lies are really truths, that difficult decisions and other struggles are always wise and worth the effort, and that the innocent victims of discrimination or aggression deserve what they get. Justifying negative behavior allows people to defend themselves without having to confront their mistakes or transgressions. The research in this proposal will test a new model designed to address several unresolved issues concerning how and why people engage in defensive self-justification. For example, there is no consensus among psychologists about who is most vulnerable to defensive self-justification, how behavioral discrepancies are perceived, what emotions influence the process, or what defensive strategies are most preferred for reducing the discomfort. According to the proposed Self-Standards Model of Cognitive Dissonance, once people have acted, they evaluate their behavior against a relevant self-standard for judgment, the content of which determines for whom the behavior is likely to arouse feelings of general discomfort, guilt or shame. Furthermore, once dissonance is aroused, the model predicts that the accessibility of different aspects of self can influence the need to justify the discrepant act. Two experiments will manipulate the accessibility of different self-standards and self-attributes following a discrepant behavior and measure the motivation to justify the behavior or trivialize the discrepancy by reducing its perceived importance. In addition, the research will examine the mediating effect of self-attribute accessibility and self-conscious emotions on the justification of a discrepant act. By investigating how different people interpret a discrepant behavior, and then seek a way to reduce their discomfort, this research will provide new insight into the causes and consequences of defensive self-justification.