Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

The most insidious form of deception is self-deception. When an individual deceives others (as in a political speech), that deception may temporarily affect the attitudes and behavior of the audience. But if the deceiver then needs to justify what he has done and succeeds in deceiving himself, the effects on his attitudes and behavior are often profound and long-lasting.

Scientific research on self-justification and self-deception began in earnest in 1950, when Leon Festinger invented the theory of cognitive dissonance. Basically, cognitive dissonance occurs when an individual holds two cognitions (ideas, beliefs, attitudes) contradicting each other. Dissonance produces mental discomfort, from minor pangs to deep anguish. People do not rest easily until they reduce this discomfort, usually by modifying one cognition to make it more consistent with the other.

As a student working in Festinger's lab, Elliot Aronson made an important discovery: cognitive dissonance causes most pain, and therefore the most permanent changes, when one of the cognitions is about the way individuals see themselves and the other is about an action they perform or a statement they make that runs counter to that self-concept. Elaborating on that insight, Aronson suggested that because most people consider themselves to be relatively smart, moral, and competent, when they do something that makes them feel stupid, immoral, or incompetent, they experience the greatest pain of dissonance. Because it is virtually unthinkable for people to change their beliefs in the kind of persons they are (“I guess I am a stupid, immoral slob after all!”), they strive, instead, to invent a story that justifies the action that threatened their self-concept.

There are a great many ways for individuals to justify their actions, but they usually involve constructing a story that enhances the value of the action they have taken, that diminishes the importance of the unethical behavior in which they have engaged, or that dehumanizes the person they have harmed. Fifty years of research has supported these ideas.

Research in Self-Justification

In a classic experiment by Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith, participants were asked to lie by falsely telling an incoming participant that the excruciatingly boring task they had just performed was actually fun and interesting. In subsequent experiments, participants were asked to lie to others about what they really thought: to publicly argue in favor of a position they were actually strongly against. Some participants were paid well for their misrepresentations, and others poorly. Participants who were paid well, or were offered other strong incentives or justifications for their behavior, seemed to feel no dissonance and no need to tell themselves any further story about why it was okay to lie. But those who were not offered adequate justifications came up with their own, typically by deciding that they weren't really lying. They really believed what they said, and they were doing good by convincing others.

While early studies focused on lying or other harmful behaviors toward others, research soon showed that individuals feel compelled to justify foolish behaviors as well: lying to themselves is an effort to feel good about their choices. But people often suffer from these self-justifications, finding it difficult to abandon foolish choices, to admit their mistakes and move on. With blinders shielding them from awareness of their mistakes, they persist in walking the same flawed paths. The worse the mistakes, the harder they work to justify them to themselves and others.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading