Post-Decision Dissonance - Research Paper Example

? Research Paper Post-decision Dissonance Social Psychological Concept Dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling which people undergoafter facing conflicting situation and which incite a drive to change the situation. It can also be considered as a lack of harmony between ones behavior in relation to their belief. Milam (2005) defines post-decision dissonance as a situation where people try to justify the decisions they made in the past mostly after being infringed on. This is because by making a choice to follow certain decisions they may experience disturbance for having left some other likeable decision. In this situation people and especially victims of harm tend to review whether certain decision they took towards perpetrators were the right decisions. Various factors affect the amount of dissonance that may arise. The key factor that influences occurrence of post-decision dissonance is the extent of the situation at hand and the consequences that may result from it.If a situation is highly consequential there is a high likelihood of this dissonance occurring. Another factor that may affect the dissonance affecting the person is the time taken to be decisive and come to a conclusion on one decision. Difficulty in changing a decision, once the decision is made, is also another factor that affects the dissonance felt by an aggrieved person (Milam, 2005). The less difficult it is to reverse a decision made, the more likely the individual will have the post-decision dissonance. In the case scenario, the girl decides to forgive her boyfriend meaning that she chooses not to break up with him after that decision. However, later she may experience post-decision dissonance and start reviewing why she did not opt to walk out of therelationship. Forgiveness has been linked to good psychologicalreaction and positive thinking. According to Milam (2005), people who are fond of blaming others for their wrongdoings and are hostile and angry, tend to develop physical and mental problems, which are all related to stress. Studies have shown that people who pardon their offenders have improved cardiovascular and neural network operation as compared to those who have no thoughts of forgiving. Studies also tend to suggest that forgiveness leads to affirmative thinking, increases individuals’ hope, reduces the seeking of attention on oneself while promoting religion. According to Hoeksema and Harrell (2002) the welfare of more committed relationships can also be attributed to forgiveness of a couple as compared to less committed relationships which may experience psychological hostility due to lack of forgiveness. However despite all the positives that are attributed to forgiveness there are negative effects which can hurt an individual. These negative reactions include blaming oneself, desire to be vengeful and excessive defensiveness. Post-decision dissonance has been associated with depression and indulgence in alcohol (Nolen and Harrell, 2002). According to Clark (2001) and McCullough, Bellah, Kilpatrick,and Johnson (2001), victims who experience post-decision dissonance are more likely to be anxious and more vengeful. Connection between Research and Real World Observations Post-decision dissonance can be reduced in four major ways .One popular way of alleviating this dissonance is by enhancing evaluation of alternative decisions and knowledge so as to enhance the attractiveness of the choices and decisions taken over those foregone (Thoresen, Harris, and Luskin, 2000). By doing this the attitude towards the chosen decision changes and an individual begins to see that they took the best decision. Another way of countering post-decision dissonance is reducing interest of the foregone decision and making and whether it is unattractive. This enables an individual to see that the decision made is way better than that the decision which the individual does not make. In some circumstances however, revoking and doing away with the foregone decision, is the best way to counteract post-decision dissonance. This may apply mostly in marital issues or purchasing of items which are of high prices. Not viewing the foregone decision as a significant one can also assist an individual in reducing the chances of having post-decision dissonance. The construct of post-decision dissonance as explained from a psychological point of view is partially true (Milam, 2005). It is true, since most people in the real world experience it, long after making the critical decision to stay and later regret having made such a decision. An excellent example of a real life situation is when the buyer makes the purchase decision. When the buyer buys a product when he or she is not sure that that is what they want, post-decision dissonance is likely to occur. It is likely to occur when the buyer witnesses other buyers making purchases of other quality brands, perhaps of a higher quality than the one the buyer gets. Another real life situation is, in marriages, when infidelity occurs like in the scenario aforementioned, the victim may forgive the guilty party but he or she may later start reviewing the decision made as a wrong move. However, as per the infidelity issue in a relationship scenario, in real life many more problems may arise that may even lead to the girl or the boy going being involved in infidelity in order to revenge. Post-decision dissonance in real life can be observed even to people who smoke. While the cigarette packets have warning messages of smoking being harmful to human health, people continue smoking, while justifying that they only smoke mostly three at one session with the assumption that this cannot be very harmful. Others may vindicate themselves by claiming that they have tried to quit, but have not successfully put a stop to the behavior. This is an outright example of how post-decision dissonance occurs in everyday life where people try to justify decisions they take even when there is an indication of these decisions affecting their well-being. Despite psychological explanation of post-decision dissonance being true, there are situations where there is discrepancy to the explanation. In some situations the decision made may be the right one. In a scenario where an individual is invited to a party where there is a high probability of using drugs and the individual feels he made the right decision, this cannot be viewed as justification because it is the first decision that the individual makes. Another scenario is whereby a parent decides to take a child to school when the child attains the school going age. Even following an afterthought, the parent cannot see a better alternative because that is by fact the best decision without any justification. This is to show that in some situations there exists a thin line between decisions made that are factually right and decisions that lead to dissonance. Cultures and backgrounds may also affect decision without there being post-decision dissonance (Clark, 2001). This can be observed in the decision making of people who still maintain and practice their cultures today, whereby they make decisions in relation to interpersonal and societal concerns and cultural beliefs. This means that for such individuals, making a decision after referring to these factors cannot lead to post-decision dissonance as the decision made by the person is driven by cultural factors. References Clark, D. A. (2001). The persistent problem of negative cognition in anxiety and depression: New perspectives and old controversies. Journal of Behavior Therapy, 32, 3-12. McCullough, M.E., Bellah, C.G., Kilpatrick, S. D., Johnson, J. L. (2001). Vengefulness: Relationships with forgiveness, rumination, well-being, and the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 601-610. Milam, B. (2005). Selective exposure and recall as a means of post decision dissonance reduction in dating choices. Washington: Eastern Washington University. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Harrell, Z. A. (2002). Rumination, depression, and alcohol use: Tests of gender differences. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy, 16, 391-403. Thoresen, C. E., Harris, A. H. S., & Luskin, F. (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 254-280). New York: Guilford Press. Read More