This is the best example yet that the human brain is not rational or intentional.
So here is the study.
People walking through a public park were given a set of statements and
asked to rate them on a 9-point scale for how much they agreed or disagreed. The questions were about fundamental social
values. For example:
“Large-scale governmental surveillance of e-mail and
Internet traffic ought to be permitted as a means to combat international crime
and terrorism.”
After completing 2-pages of these ratings, the person was
asked to discuss the reasons behind their opinions for three of them. But secretly, a “not” was added. So if a person strongly agreed with the above
statement, they were asked to explain why they strongly agreed with the
opposite. And because of the way it was
done, it seemed as if they had really said this just a few seconds earlier.
About half of the respondents thought perhaps they had
misread the question. But for the other
half, they were able to justify an opinion that was directly opposed to their
real opinion. They were able to come up
with reasonable and personal rationales.
There are a few possible explanations for how this can
happen. One I have talked about before – identity resonance. If you really
thought that you had just rated the statement as a “strongly agree”, your brain
wouldn’t allow you to contradict yourself and appear wishy-washy. It would search for a reasonable explanation
and convince yourself that it was a good one.
The second explanation is that even strongly held social
values are very contextually based.
Something might be right or wrong in one situation, but legitimately the
opposite in another. There are many
examples. Take pro-choice/pro-life. How many people do you know that are
pro-choice but against the death penalty – or vice versa? I know these are not the same thing, but it
highlights a kind of contradiction. Or someone
can be in favor of personal liberty when it comes to legalizing marijuana, but
then against it for gun ownership (and again - or vice-versa). So perhaps we had one context in mind when
making the original rating, but when faced with the contradiction we bring to
mind a context where we really do believe in the opposite.