Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts

by Carol Tavris

I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come. —Lord Molson, twentieth-century British politician

I will look at any additional evidence to confirm the opinion to which I have already come. —Lord Molson, twentieth-century British politician

Self-justification is complicated enough when it follows our conscious choices and we know we can expect it. But it also occurs in the aftermath of things we do for unconscious reasons, when we haven’t a clue about why we hold some belief or cling to some custom but are too proud to admit it. In the introduction, we described the custom of the Dinka and Nuer tribes of the Sudan, who extract several of the permanent front teeth of their children—a painful procedure, done with a fishhook. Anthropologists suggest that this tradition originated during an epidemic of lockjaw; missing front teeth would enable sufferers to get some nourishment. But if that was the reason, why in the world would the villagers continue this custom once the danger had passed? A practice that makes no sense at all to outsiders makes perfect sense when seen through the lens of dissonance theory. During the epidemic, the villagers might have begun extracting the front teeth of all their children so that if any of them later contracted tetanus, the adults would be able to feed them. But this is a painful thing to do to children, and in any case, only some would become infected. To further justify their actions, to themselves and their children, the villagers needed to bolster the decision by adding benefits to the procedure after the fact. Thus, they might convince themselves that missing teeth had aesthetic value—“Say, that sunken-chin look is really quite attractive”—and they might even turn the surgi...

A practice that makes no sense at all to outsiders makes perfect sense when seen through the lens of dissonance theory. During the epidemic, the villagers might have begun extracting the front teeth of all their children so that if any of them later contracted tetanus, the adults would be able to feed them. But this is a painful thing to do to children, and in any case, only some would become infected. To further justify their actions, to themselves and their children, the villagers needed to bolster the decision by adding benefits to the procedure after the fact. Thus, they might convince themselves that missing teeth had aesthetic value—“Say, that sunken-chin look is really quite attractive”—and they might even turn the surgical ordeal into a rite of passage into adulthood. And, indeed, that is just what happened. “The toothless look is beautiful,” the villagers say. “People who have all their teeth are ugly; they look like cannibals who would eat a person. A full set of teeth makes a man look like a donkey.” The toothless look has other aesthetic advantages: “We like the hissing sound it creates when we speak.” And adults console frightened children by saying, “This ritual is a sign of maturity.”20 The original medical justification for the practice is long gone. The psychological self-justification remains.

Spirals of Violence—and Virtue Feeling stressed? One internet source teaches you how to make your own little Dammit Doll, which “can be thrown, jabbed, stomped and even strangled till all the frustration leaves you.” A little poem goes with it: Whenever things don’t go so well, And you want to hit the wall and yell, Here’s a little dammit doll that you can’t do without. Just grasp it firmly by the legs and find a place to slam it. And as you whack the stuffing out, yell, “Dammit, dammit, dammit!”

Spirals of Violence—and Virtue Feeling stressed? One internet source teaches you how to make your own little Dammit Doll, which “can be thrown, jabbed, stomped and even strangled till all the frustration leaves you.” A little poem goes with it: Whenever things don’t go so well, And you want to hit the wall and yell, Here’s a little dammit doll that you can’t do without. Just grasp it firmly by the legs and find a place to slam it. And as you whack the stuffing out, yell, “Dammit, dammit, dammit!” The Dammit Doll reflects one of the most entrenched convictions in our culture, fostered by the psychoanalytic belief in the benefits of catharsis: expressing anger or behaving aggressively gets rid of anger. Throw that doll, hit a punching bag, shout at your spouse; you’ll feel better afterward. Actually, decades of experimental research have found exactly the opposite: when people vent their feelings aggressively, they often feel worse, pump up their blood pressure, and make themselves even angrier.21 Venting is especially likely to backfire when a person commits an aggressive act against another person directly, and that is exactly what cognitive dissonance theory would predict. When you do anything that harms others—get them in trouble, verbally abuse them, or punch them out—a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did. Take a boy who goes along with a group of his fellow seventh graders who are taunting and bullying a weaker kid who did them no harm...

The Dammit Doll reflects one of the most entrenched convictions in our culture, fostered by the psychoanalytic belief in the benefits of catharsis: expressing anger or behaving aggressively gets rid of anger. Throw that doll, hit a punching bag, shout at your spouse; you’ll feel better afterward. Actually, decades of experimental research have found exactly the opposite: when people vent their feelings aggressively, they often feel worse, pump up their blood pressure, and make themselves even angrier.21 Venting is especially likely to backfire when a person commits an aggressive act against another person directly, and that is exactly what cognitive dissonance theory would predict. When you do anything that harms others—get them in trouble, verbally abuse them, or punch them out—a powerful new factor comes into play: the need to justify what you did. Take a boy who goes along with a group of his fellow seventh graders who are taunting and bullying a weaker kid who did them no harm. The boy likes being part of the gang but his heart really isn’t in the bullying. Later, he feels some dissonance about what he did. “How can a decent kid like me,” he wonders, “have done such a cruel ...

The results of the first experiment that demonstrated this actually came as a complete surprise to the investigator. Michael Kahn, then a graduate student in clinical psychology at Harvard, designed an ingenious experiment that he was sure would demonstrate the benefits of catharsis. Posing as a medical technician, Kahn took polygraph and blood pressure measurements from college students, one at a time, allegedly as part of a medical experiment. As he was taking these measurements, Kahn feigned annoyance and made some insulting remarks to the students (having to do with their mothers). The students got angry; their blood pressure soared. In the experimental condition, the students were allowed to vent their anger by informing Kahn’s supervisor of his insults; thus, they believed they were getting him in big trouble. In the control condition, the students did not get a chance to express their anger. Kahn, a good Freudian, was astonished by the results: Catharsis was a total flop in terms of making people feel better. The people who were allowed to express their anger about Kahn felt far greater animosity toward him than those who were not given that opportunity. In addition, alth...

The results of the first experiment that demonstrated this actually came as a complete su...

Michael Kahn, then a graduate student in clinical psychology at Harvard, designed an ingenious experiment that he was sure would demonstrate the benefits of catharsis. Posing as a medical technician, Kahn took polygraph and blood pressure measurements from college students, one at a time, allegedly as part of a medical experiment. As he was taking these measurements, Kahn feigned annoyance and made some insulting remarks to the students (having to do with their mothers). The students got angry; their blood pressure soared. In the experimental condition, the students were allowed to vent their anger by informing Kahn’s supervisor of his insults; thus, they believed they were getting him in big trouble. In the control condition, the students did not get a chance to express their anger. Kahn, a good Freudian, was astonished by the results: Catharsis was a total flop in terms of making people feel better. The people who were allowed to express their anger about Kahn felt far greater animosity toward him than those who were not given that opportunity. In addition, although everyone’s blood pressure went up during the experiment, subjects who expressed their anger showed even greater ...

Fortunately, dissonance theory also shows us how a person’s generous actions can create a spiral of benevolence and compassion, a “virtuous circle.” When people do a good deed, particularly when they do it on a whim or by chance, they will come to see the beneficiary of their generosity in a warmer light. Their cognition that they went out of their way to do a favor for this person is dissonant with any negative feelings they might have had about him. In effect, after doing the favor, they ask themselves: “Why would I do something nice for a jerk? Therefore, he’s not as big a jerk as I thought he was—as a matter of fact, he is a pretty decent guy who deserves a break.” Several experiments have supported this prediction. In one, college students participated in a contest in which they won substantial sums of money. Afterward, the experimenter approached one-third of them and explained that he was using his own funds for the experiment and was running short, which meant he might be forced to close down the experiment prematurely. He asked, “As a special favor to me, would you mind returning the money you won?” (They all agreed.) A second group was also asked to return the money, but this time it was the departmental secretary who made the request, explaining that the psychology department’s research fund was running low. (They still all agreed.) The remaining participants were not asked to return their winnings at all. Finally, everyone filled out a questionnaire that includ...

Several experiments have supported this prediction. In one, college students participated in a contest in which they won substantial sums of money. Afterward, the experimenter approached one-third of them and explained that he was using his own funds for the experiment and was running short, which

meant he might be forced to close down the experiment prematurely. He asked, “As a special favor to me, would you mind returning the money you won?” (They all agreed.) A second group was also asked to return the money, but this time it was the departmental secretary who made the request, explaining that the psychology department’s research fund was running low. (They still all agreed.) The remaining participants were not asked to return their winnings at all. Finally, everyone filled out a questionnaire that included an opportunity to rate the experimenter. Participants who had been cajoled into doing a special favor for him liked him the best; they c...

Dissonance is bothersome under any circumstances, but it is most painful to people when an important element of their self-concept is threatened—typically when they do something that is inconsistent with their view of themselves.26 If a celebrity you admire is accused of an immoral act, you will feel a pang of dissonance, and the more you liked and admired that person, the greater the dissonance you’ll feel. (Later in this book, we’ll discuss the massive dissonance felt by Michael Jackson’s many fans upon hearing compelling evidence of his sexual relationships with young boys.) But that’s nothing compared to how you would feel if you did the immoral thing. If you regard yourself as a person of high integrity and you do something that harms another person, you’ll feel a much more devastating rush of dissonance than you would on hearing about a favorite movie star’s transgression. After all, you can always abandon your allegiance to a celebrity or find another hero. But if you violate your own values, you’ll feel much greater dissonance because, at the end of the day, you have to go on living with yourself. In a sweet demonstration of how the need for self-esteem trumps the virtue of realistic modesty, the great majority of people think they are “better than average”—we might call this the Lake Wobegone effect. They say they are better than average in all kinds of ways—smarter, nicer, more ethical, funnier, more competent, more humble, even better drivers.27 Their efforts at...

Dissonance is bothersome under any circumstances, but it is most painful to people when an important element of their self-concept is threatened—typically when they do something that is inconsistent with their view of themselves.26 If a celebrity you admire is accused of an immoral act, you will feel a pang of dissonance, and the more you liked and admired that person, the greater the dissonance you’ll feel. (Later in this book, we’ll discuss the massive dissonance felt by Michael Jackson’s many fans upon hearing compelling evidence of his sexual relationships with young boys.) But that’s nothing compared to how you would feel if you did the immoral thing. If you regard yourself as a person of high integrity and you do something that harms another person, you’ll feel a much more devastating rush of dissonance than you would on hearing about a favorite movie star’s transgression. After all, you can always abandon your allegiance to a celebrity or find another hero. But if you violate your own values, you’ll feel much greater dissonance because, at the end of the day, you have to go on living with yourself. In a sweet demonstration of how the need for self-esteem trumps the virtue of realistic modesty, the great majority of people think they are “better than average”—we might call this the Lake Wobegone effect. They say they are better than average in all kinds of ways—smarter, nicer, more ethical, funnier, more competent, more humble, even better drivers.27 Their efforts at...

And what do these experts do when their prophecies are disconfirmed? In 2010, a coalition of twenty-three prominent economists, fund managers, academics, and journalists signed a letter opposing the Federal Reserve’s practice of buying long-term debt as a way of pushing down long-term interest rates. This practice risks “currency debasement and inflation” and fails to create jobs, the experts stated, and therefore should be “reconsidered and discontinued.” Four years later, inflation was still low (indeed lower than the Federal Reserve’s goal of 2 percent), unemployment had fallen sharply, job growth was improving, and the stock market was soaring. Accordingly, reporters went back to the letter’s signers and asked, Have you changed your minds? Of the twenty-three signatories, fourteen didn’t reply. The other nine said their views were unchanged; they were just as worried about inflation now as they had ever been. Like the failed doomsday prophets, they had clever self-justifications for not admitting they had been wrong, very wrong. One said the nation had had inflation; it just hadn’t shown up yet in consumer prices. One, using what he later admitted were bogus statistics, claimed the country was in the midst of double-digit inflation. One said that “official numbers err” and that inflation was really much higher than the Bureau of Labor Statistics claimed. And several, with echoes of doomsday, said their prediction was right but the date was wrong: “High inflation will c...

This process blurs the distinction that people like to draw between “us good guys” and “those bad guys.” Often, when standing at the top of the pyramid, we are faced not with a black-or-white, go-or-no-go decision but with gray choices whose consequences are shrouded. The first steps along the path are morally ambiguous, and the right decision is not always clear. We make an early, apparently inconsequential decision, and then we justify it to reduce the ambiguity of the choice. This starts a process of entrapment—action, justification, further action—that increases our intensity and commitment and may end up taking us far from our original intentions or principles.

This

Ja

The greatest of faults, I should say, is to be conscious of none. —Thomas

critical turning point occurred in 1980, when the Supreme Court ruled that patents could be issued on genetically modified bacteria independent of the process of development. That meant that you could get a patent for discovering a virus, altering a plant, isolating a gene, or modifying any other living organism as a “product of manufacture.” The gold rush was on—the scientists’ road to St. Andrews. Before long, many professors of molecular biology were serving on the advisory boards of biotechnology corporations and owned stock in companies selling products based on their research. Universities seeking new sources of revenue began establishing intellectual-property offices and providing incentives for faculty who patented their discoveries. Throughout the 1980s, the ideological climate shifted from one in which science was valued for its own sake or for the public interest to one in which science was valued for the profits it could generate in the private interest. Major changes in tax and patent laws were enacted, federal funding of research declined sharply, and tax benefits created a steep rise in funding from industry. The pharmaceutical industry was deregulated, and within a decade it had become one of the most profitable businesses in the United

Another way to measure the subtle effects of sponsorship is by comparing the results of studies funded independently and those funded by industry, which consistently reveal a funding bias. Two investigators selected 161 studies, all published during the same six-year span, of the possible risks to human health of four chemicals. Of the studies funded by industry, only 14 percent found harmful effects on health; of those funded independently, fully 60 percent found harmful effects.16 A researcher examined more than 100 controlled clinical trials designed to determine the effectiveness of a new medication over older ones. Of those favoring the traditional drug, 13 percent had been funded by drug companies and 87 percent by nonprofit institutions.17 Two Danish investigators examined 159 clinical trials that had been published between 1997 and 2001 in the British Medical Journal, where authors are required to declare potential conflicts of interest. The researchers could therefore compare studies in which the investigators had declared a conflict of interest with those in which there was none. The findings were “significantly more positive toward the experimental intervention” (i.e., the new drug compared to an older one) when the study had been funded by a for-profit organization.18 If most of the scientists funded by industry are not consciously cheating, what is causing the funding bias? Clinical trials of new drugs are complicated by many factors, including length of treat...

In 1998, a team of scientists reported in the distinguished medical journal the Lancet that they had found a positive correlation between autism and the MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine. Boom—the announcement generated enormous fear and put scientists, physicians, and parents at the top of the pyramid with this decision: Should we stop vaccinating children? Thousands of parents stepped off in the direction of “yes,” relieved that they now knew the reason for their children’s autism or reassured that they had a way to prevent it. Six years later, ten of the thirteen scientists involved in this study retracted that particular result and revealed that the lead author, Andrew Wakefield, had had a conflict of interest he had failed to disclose to the journal: he was conducting research on behalf of lawyers representing parents of autistic children. Wakefield had been paid more than eight hundred thousand dollars to determine whether there were grounds for pursuing legal action, and he gave the study’s affirmative answer to the lawyers before publication. “We judge that all this information would have been material to our decision-making about the paper’s suitability, credibility, and validity for publication,” wrote Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet.20

self-justification, because most of the anti-vaccine alarmists have never said, “We were wrong, and look at the harm we caused.” Andrew Wakefield, whose license was revoked by British medical authorities, stands by his view that vaccines cause autism. “I will not be deterred,” he said in a press release. “This issue is far too important.”25 In 2015, following an extensive outbreak of measles that started at Disneyland, Barbara Loe Fisher, president of an anti-vaccine

their integrity cannot be compromised. Yet every time physicians accept a fee or other incentive for performing certain tests and procedures, for channeling some of their patients into clinical trials, or for prescribing a new, expensive drug that is not better or safer than an older one, they are balancing their patients’ welfare against their own financial concerns. Their blind spot helps them tip the balance in their own favor, and then justify it: “If a pharmaceutical company wants to give us pens, notepads, calendars, lunches, honoraria, or small consulting fees, why not? We can’t be bought by trinkets and pizzas.” According to surveys, physicians regard small gifts as being ethically more acceptable than large gifts. The American Medical Association agrees, approving of gift-taking from pharmaceutical representatives as long as no single gift is worth much more than a hundred dollars. The evidence shows, however, that most physicians are influenced even more by small gifts than by big ones.

on small gifts as well as the big ones is well known to marketers, lobbyists, and social psychologists: being given a gift evokes an implicit desire to reciprocate. The Fuller Brush salespeople understood this principle decades ago when they pioneered the foot-in-the-door technique: Give a housewife a little brush as a gift, and she won’t slam the door in your face. And once she hasn’t slammed the door in your face, she will be more inclined to invite you in, and eventually to buy your expensive brushes. Robert Cialdini, who has spent many years studying influence and persuasion techniques, systematically observed Hare Krishna advocates raise money at airports.30 Asking weary travelers for a donation wasn’t working; the requests just made the travelers mad at them. And so the Krishnas came up with a better idea: They would approach a target traveler and press a flower into his hands or pin a flower to his jacket. If the target refused the flower and tried to give it back, the Krishna would demur and say, “It is our gift to you.” Only then would the Krishna

recipients. His brother Hal, a psychiatrist, told him how he ended up on the speakers bureau of a large pharmaceutical company: First they asked him to give a talk about depression to a community group. Why not? he thought; it would be a public service. Next they asked him to speak on the same subject at a hospital. Next they began making suggestions about the content of his talk, urging him to speak not about depression but about antidepressants. Then they told him they could get him on a national speaking circuit, “where the real money is.” Then they asked him to lecture about their own new antidepressant. Looking back, Hal told his

Al Campanis was a very nice man, even a sweet man, but also a flawed man who made one colossal mistake in his 81 years on earth—a mistake that would come to define him forevermore. —Mike Littwin,

to the fortieth anniversary of Jackie Robinson’s Major League debut. Ted Koppel interviewed Al Campanis, general manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers, who had been part of the Dodger organization since 1943 and who had been Robinson’s teammate on the Montreal Royals in 1946. That year, Campanis punched a bigoted player who had insulted Robinson and, subsequently, championed the admission of black players into Major League Baseball. And then, in talking with Koppel, Campanis put his brain on autopilot. Koppel asked Al, an old friend of Jackie Robinson’s, why there were no black managers, general managers, or owners in baseball. Campanis was evasive at first—you have to pay your dues by working in the minors; there’s not much pay while you’re working your way up—but Koppel pressed him: KOPPEL: Yeah, but you know in your heart of hearts . . . you know that that’s a lot of baloney. I mean, there are a lot of black players, there are a lot of great black baseball men who would dearly love to be in managerial

peel it away a little bit. Just tell me why you think it is. Is there still that much prejudice in baseball today? CAMPANIS: No, I don’t believe it’s prejudice. I truly believe that they may not have some of the necessities to be, let’s say, a field manager, or perhaps a general manager. KOPPEL: Do you really believe that? CAMPANIS: Well, I don’t say that all of them, but they certainly are short. How many quarterbacks do you have? How many pitchers do you have that are black? Two days after this interview and the public uproar it caused, the Dodgers fired Campanis. A year later, he said he had been “wiped out” when the interview took place and therefore not entirely himself. Who was the real Al Campanis? A bigot or a victim of political correctness? Neither. He was a man who liked and respected the black players he knew, who defended Jackie Robinson when doing so was neither fashionable nor expected, and who had a blind spot: He thought that black men were capable of being great players but weren’t smart enough to be managers. And in his heart of hearts, he told Koppel, he didn’t see what was wrong with that attitude; “I don’t believe it’s prejudice,” he said. Campanis was not lying or being coy. But, as general manager, he was in a position to recommend the hiring of a black manager, and his blind spot kept him from even considering that possibility.

The Nature of Prejudice, written in 1954, social psychologist Gordon Allport described the responses characteristic of a prejudiced man when confronted with evidence contradicting his beliefs: MR. X: The trouble with Jews is that they only take care of their own group. MR. Y: But the record of the Community Chest campaign shows that they give more generously, in proportion to their numbers, to the general charities of the community, than do non-Jews. MR. X: That shows they are always trying to buy favor and intrude into Christian affairs. They think of nothing but money; that is why there are so many Jewish bankers. MR. Y: But a recent study shows that the percentage of Jews in the banking business is negligible, far smaller than the percentage of non-Jews. MR. X: That’s just it; they don’t go in for respectable business; they are only in the movie business or run night clubs.38

involving puréed caterpillars. Will you rush out to try this culinary adventure? If you have a prejudice against eating insects, probably not, even if this chef has made the front page of the New York Times Food section. You will, like the bigoted Mr. X, find another reason to justify it. “Ugh,” you would tell Mr. Y, “insects are ugly and squishy.” “Sure,” he says. “Tell me again why you eat lobster and raw oysters?”

Stormfront members and other unapologetic white nationalists flaunt their prejudices. But most Americans who are prejudiced against a particular group know better than to announce that fact, given that many people live and work in environments where they can be slapped on the wrist, publicly humiliated, or sacked for saying anything that smacks of an ism. However, just as it takes mental effort to maintain a prejudice despite conflicting information, it also takes mental effort to suppress those negative feelings. Social psychologists Chris Crandall and Amy Eshelman, reviewing the huge research literature on prejudice, found that whenever people are emotionally depleted—when they are sleepy, frustrated, angry, anxious, drunk, or stressed—they become more willing to express their real prejudices toward another group. When Mel Gibson was arrested for drunk driving and launched into an anti-Semitic tirade, he claimed, in his inevitable statement of apology the next day, that “I said things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable. I am deeply ashamed of everything I said . . . I apologize for any behavior unbecoming of me in my inebriated state.” Translation: “It wasn’t me, it was the booze.” Nice try, but the evidence shows clearly that while inebriation makes it easier for people to reveal their prejudices, it doesn’t put those attitudes in their minds. Therefore, when people apologize by saying, “I don’t really believe those things I said; I was [tired/wor...

Every so often, a heartwarming news story tells of a shipwrecked sailor who was on the verge of drowning in a turbulent sea. Suddenly, a dolphin popped up at his side and, gently but firmly, nudged the swimmer safely to shore. Dolphins must really like human beings, enough to save us from drowning! But wait—are dolphins aware that humans don’t swim as well as they do? Are they actually intending to be helpful? To answer that question, we would need to know how many shipwrecked sailors have been gently nudged farther out to sea by dolphins, there to drown and never be heard from again. We don’t know about those cases, because the swimmers don’t live to tell us about their evil-dolphin experiences. If we had that information, we might conclude that dolphins are neither benevolent nor evil; they are just being playful. Sigmund Freud himself fell victim to the flawed reasoning of the benevolent-dolphin problem. When his fellow analysts questioned his notion that all men suffer from castration anxiety, he was amused. He wrote: “One hears of analysts who boast that, though they have worked for dozens of years, they have never found a sign of the existence of the castration complex. We must bow our heads in recognition of . . . [this] piece of virtuosity in the art of overlooking and mistaking.”17 So if analysts see castration anxiety in their patients, Freud was right, and if they fail to see it, they are “overlooking” it, and Freud is still right. Men themselves cannot tell you...

testimony had been tainted by how they had been interviewed. And how was that? With the confirmation bias going at full speed and no reins of scientific caution to restrain it, a deadly combination that was the hallmark of the interviews of children conducted in all the daycare cases. Here is how Susan Kelley, a pediatric nurse who interviewed children in a number of these cases, used Bert and Ernie puppets

Benjamin Franklin, who advised, “Keep your eyes wide open before marriage, and half shut afterward,” understood the power of dissonance

difficult to accept that evidence later if it suggests that we were wrong, as happened in the McMartin preschool case (where, the nation later learned, children had been pressured to report increasingly preposterous allegations of abuse) or the Duke lacrosse case (where, the nation later learned, a stripper’s allegations of rape against a group of players were false, and the district attorney was disbarred

A great nation is like a great man: When he makes a mistake, he realizes it. Having realized it, he admits it. Having admitted it, he corrects it. He considers those who point out his faults as his most benevolent