I've been pouring over the blog posts and articles written by John
Tierney and Keith Chen regarding cognitive dissonance and the Monty
Hall problem. I have to tell you - it's been a bit difficult to get
clarity on all this, but I thought it's a topic that would be of
interest to my listeners. I understand the Monty Hall problem (that
was kinda fun figuring that one out) and I read the 1956 article by
Jack Brehm ("Postdecisional Changes in the Desirability of
Alternatives") and I think I see the problem there, but can anyone
tell me if I'm seeing the connection between these two correctly?
The Monty Hall problem is that when one door is eliminated from the
game we think (incorrectly) that we now have a 50-50 chance of being
right and that eliminating the one door had no effect on our odds of
winning. In the study by Brehm, he eliminated the group of subjects
who chose the low rated object (toaster, coffee maker, etc.) on the
belief that this wouldn't affect the statistics. Now, if I understand
this correctly, what Chen and Tierney are saying is that eliminating
these subjects from the study was like eliminating one door from the
Monty Hall game: eliminating the subjects actually does change
things. That is, the reason why the subjects who remained in the
study ranked their choice higher on the re-ranking exercise is not
that they experienced dissonance and needed to think that their choice
was the best one, but rather that they simply liked their choice and
were re-affirming this ("we shouldn't be surprised that people like
the things they chose").
Do I have this right? Or is there something I'm missing here?
Appreciate any feedback on this.
Michael
www.psychfilespodcast.com
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
To make changes to your subscription contact:
Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
