Comments on: Cognitive dissonance reduction

By: parreira

parreira — Wed, 17 Oct 2012 14:47:18 +0000

Regarding the Monty Hall Problem, I recall the Mythbusters episode where they tested it.
It was interesting to watch the psychological side of their experiment. Nobody (or almost nobody) chose to change the original choice. This can be, indeed, related to the A, B and C experiment. If the original choice is A, we can interpret it as not-B. So, when the choice is between B and C, and if the subject prefered not-B, the “obvious” choice would be C.

By: devenant

devenant — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 22:13:49 +0000

The experiment has some resemblance to the Monty Hall problem, though I haven’t thought through the details. Wouldn’t it be nice if you could completely reduce the explanation to Bayesian math?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Hall_problem

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:17:27 +0000

Ditto edmo’s props to you on MindHacks… great stuff. Not sure about the monkeys, but we do know that preference assessment methods in humans can generate reversals. A “fill in the blank” assessment (which is pretty much what the kids did in this study to determine A = B = C) lead to different preference orderings than binary choice approaches. This effect could lead to the effect observed. See an old paper I co-authored on this issue at http://mdm.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/3/208.

By: Vaughan

Vaughan — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 19:36:10 +0000

As a general point about reduction, I agree within a single theory domain, but I see psychologists as much more able than other disciplines to entertain parallel explanations using different levels of explanation.
For example, being quite happy to work with theories at both the biological and psychological levels, but within both, aim for Ockham’s Razor.

By: edmo

edmo — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:59:48 +0000

Tom/Vaughan – thanks for all the great stuff you guys write for Mindhacks.
Re. the kids & monkeys and choices between A, B, and C – though I’m just a joe layperson, this article got me thinking about a couple of things that I thought might be useful if shared.
You mention a couple of alternatives to cognitive dissonance being the cause of the behaviour – including that their preferences remained static but were not accurately measured at the outset. A relatively simple alternative is that this is not a demonstration of cognitive dissonance reduction, or of static but initially inaccurately measured preferences, but of preferences that simply changed due to the effects of new experiences and new information.
Perhaps the kids/monkeys truly did like A, B, and C equally at the outset, but when presented with A and B only, and then forced to choose A, they interpreted this new info/experience in a way that said, “B is inferior to A”, or, “B sucks in general”, or “Why isn’t C part of this game…why can’t I have C?”
To me the experiment’s results could simply be a matter of new experiences and information leading to new conclusions and preferences. There is not necessarily a need to look at static, unchanging conclusions and preferences (which I think are less likely), or at revisionist history/dissonance reduction.
One additional challenge I see with calling the kids’/monkeys’ behaviour dissonance reduction is that there is no measurable evidence of their minds distorting the truth about their actions or their beliefs (i.e. no evidence that they were trying to convince themselves and/or the experimenters that they had always preferred C over B, even though they initially indicated they liked C and B equally.) While I don’t think there is anything in this experiment that rules out cognitive dissonance and dissonance reduction as possible causes or contributing factors to the kids/monkeys behaviour, to me the evidence here only allows us to surmise that either their preferences changed, or else their preferences were not accurately indicated/measured at the outset.
Curious to know anyone’s thoughts. Thanks for reading.