We’re taught from childhood how important it is to explain how we feel and to always justify our actions. But does giving reasons always make things clearer, or could it sometimes distract us from our true feelings?
One answer came from a study led by psychology professor Timothy Wilson at the University of Virginia, which asked university students to report their feelings, either with or without being asked to provide reasons. What they found revealed just how difficult it can be to reliably discern our feelings when justifying our decisions.
Participants were asked to evaluate five posters of the kind that students might put up in their bedrooms. Two of the posters were of art – one was Monet’s water lilies, the other Van Gogh’s irises. The other three posters were a cartoon of animals in a balloon and two posters of photographs of cats with funny captions.
All the students had to evaluate the posters, but half the participants were asked to provide reasons for liking or disliking them. (The other half were asked why they chose their degree subject as a control condition.) After they had provided their evaluations the participants were allowed to choose a poster to take home.
So what happened? The control group rated the art posters positively (an average score of around 7 out of 9) and they felt pretty neutral about the humorous posters (an average score of around 4 out of 9). When given a choice of one poster to take home, 95% of them chose one of the art posters. No surprises there, the experimenters had already established that in general most students preferred the art posters.
But the group of students who had to give reasons for their feelings acted differently. This “reasons” group liked the art posters less (averaging about 6 out of 9) and the humorous posters more (about 5 to 6 out of 9). Most of them still chose an art poster to take home, but it was a far lower proportion – 64% – than the control group. That means people in this group were about seven times more likely to take a humorous poster home compared with the control group.
Here’s the twist. Some time after the tests, at the end of the semester, the researchers rang each of the participants and asked them questions about the poster they’d chosen: Had they put it up in their room? Did they still have it? How did they feel about it? How much would they be willing to sell it for? The “reasons” group were less likely to have put their poster up, less likely to have kept it up, less satisfied with it on average and were willing to part with it for a smaller average amount than the control group. Over time their reasons and feelings had shifted back in line with those of the control group – they didn’t like the humorous posters they had taken home, and so were less happy about their choice.
The source of this effect, according to the researchers, is that when prompted to give reasons the participants focused on things that were easy to verbalise; they focused on the bright colours, or funny content of the humorous posters. It’s less easy to say exactly what’s pleasing about the more complex art classics. This was out of step with their feelings, so in the heat of the moment participants adjusted their feelings (a process I’ve written about before, called cognitive dissonance). After having the posters on their wall, the participants realised that they really did prefer the art posters all along.
The moral of the story isn’t that intuition is better than reason. We all know that in some situations our feelings are misleading and it is better to think about what we’re doing. But this study shows the reverse – in some situations introspection can interfere with using our feelings as a reliable guide to what we should do.
And this has consequences in adulthood, where the notion of expertise can mean struggling to discern when introspection is the best strategy. The researchers who carried out this study suggest that the distorting effect of reason-giving is most likely to occur in situations where people aren’t experts – most of the students who took part in the study didn’t have a lot of experience of thinking or talking about art. When experts are asked to give reasons for their feelings, research has found that their feelings aren’t distorted in the same way – their intuitions and explicit reasoning are in sync.
You might also see the consequences of this regularly in your line of work. Everybody knows that the average business meeting will spend the most time discussing trivial things, an effect driven by the ease with which each member of the meeting can chip in about something as inconsequential as what colour to paint the bike sheds, or when to plan a meeting to discuss the conclusions of that meeting. When we’re discussing complex issues, it isn’t so easy to make a contribution. The danger, of course, is that in a world which relies on justification and measurement of everything, those things that are most easily justified and measured will get priority over those things which are, in fact, most justified and important.
This is my BBC Future column from last week. The original is here. For what it is worth, I think the headings it received there are very distracting from the real implications of this work. If you’ve got this far, you can work out why for yourself!
6 thoughts on “When giving reasons leads to worse decisions”
Man, I love this experiment.
We talked about this, I think, but my instinct is to also focus on some of the other morals of the story – mainly that things like “cognitive dissonence” that can make us seem irrational, can actually be pretty short term things. In the long term, the students reverted back to their non-cognitive dissonance positions.
And you could describe the results with the experts like this: they had rendered themselves immune to the short term irrational influence of cognitive dissonance through better self-understanding, thus making their cognitions more stable.
Stable cognitions are a great idea, I reckon. Unstable ones can really fuck you up. (I know whereof I speak!)
People tend to get more stable as they get older. There may be many reasons for that, of course, but it seems like one of them may be better self-understanding, better vocabulary to justify and talk about their real emotions and intuitions. Which is kinda interesting, for many reasons.
Slight correction: When you decide based on your ‘feelings’ your limbic system gives the answers. Since that is attracted to colorful patterns it prefers ‘art’. But reason looks at the content and sees the meaning of the choice so it choses humorous.
There is no ‘cognitive dissonance’ it’s just different brains talking.
I didn’t quite understand why “in some situations introspection can interfere with using our feelings as a reliable guide to what we should do.” should necessarily generalize to oither kinds of decisions. The experiment wasn’t about rational choices or comparable problems, but just about esthetical preferences and taste.
This probably relates to the (related) concept of disfluency (that ideas with lower cognitive loads are mistakenly presumed to be better, e.g. per ethics, understanding). Here people over rated the importance of fluent ideas over non-fluent ideas.
For more on disfluency I’d recommend: