Page 210 - The Social Animal

192 The Social Animal

Lawrence Barrett’s pre-election piece on Candidate Ronald
Reagan [October 20] was a slick hatchet job, and you know it.
You ought to be ashamed of yourselves for printing it disguised
as an objective look at the man.

Your story on “The Real Ronald Reagan” did it. Why didn’t you
just editorially endorse him? Barrett glosses over Reagan’s fatal
flaws so handily that the “real” Ronald Reagan came across as
the answer to all our problems.

The diversity of perception reflected in these letters is not unique
to the 1980 campaign. It happened with Clinton supporters and de-
tractors. It happened with G. W. Bush supporters and detractors. In-
deed, it happens every 4 years. During the next presidential election,
check out the letters to the editor of your favorite news magazine fol-
lowing a piece on one of the leading candidates. You will find a sim-
ilar array of divergent perceptions.

Dissonance Reduction and Rational
Behavior

I have referred to dissonance-reducing behavior as “irrational.” By
this I mean it is often maladaptive in that it can prevent people from
learning important facts or from finding real solutions to their prob-
lems. On the other hand, it does serve a purpose: Dissonance-reduc-
ing behavior is ego-defensive behavior; by reducing dissonance, we
maintain a positive image of ourselves—an image that depicts us as
good, or smart, or worthwhile. Again, although this ego-defensive
behavior can be considered useful, it can have disastrous conse-
quences. In the laboratory, the irrationality of dissonance-reducing
behavior has been amply demonstrated by Edward Jones and Rika
Kohler. These investigators selected individuals who were deeply
13
committed to a position on the issue of racial segregation; some of
the participants were in favor of segregation, and others were op-
posed to it. These individuals were allowed to read a series of argu-
ments on both sides of the issue. Some of these arguments were
extremely sensible and plausible, and others were so implausible that
they bordered on the ridiculous. Jones and Kohler were interested in
determining which of the arguments people would remember best.