HI Michael I'm sure you have already read several articles in the NY Times (including a very clear explanation of the Monty Hall problem). Here is a link to the first article http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/science/08tier.html The question is how detrimental this really is to cognitive dissonance theory which uses many other paradigms - Gilbert is citing as saying - interesting point, but cognitive dissonance is fine. Marie
**************************************************** Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. Department Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology Kaufman 168, Dickinson College Carlisle, PA 17013 Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 http://alpha.dickinson.edu/departments/psych/helwegm **************************************************** -----Original Message----- From: Michael Britt [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, July 12, 2008 7:42 AM To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) Subject: [tips] Cognitive Dissonance and the Monty Hall problem 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]) --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
