Page 251 - The Social Animal

Self-Justification 233

each student would be discussing her sexual behavior and sexual
standards with another woman whom she didn’t know. Before begin-
ning these discussion sessions, each participant was given two fold-
ers. Each folder contained a personality description of a young
woman who had supposedly volunteered for the same experience; the
descriptions contained a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant charac-
teristics. Half the participants were led to believe they were going to
interact with the young women described in folder A, and the re-
maining participants were led to believe they were going to interact
with the one described in folder B. Before actually meeting these
women, the participants were asked to evaluate each of them on the
basis of the personality descriptions they had read. Those who felt it
was inevitable that they were going to share their intimate secrets
with the young woman described in folder A found her much more
appealing than the one described in folder B, whereas those who be-
lieved they had to interact with the young woman described in folder
B found her much more appealing. Just as with vegetables, inevitabil-
ity makes the heart grow fonder. The knowledge that one is in-
evitably going to be spending time with another person enhances the
positive aspects of that person—or at least deemphasizes his or her
negative aspects. In short, people tend to make the best of something
they know is bound to happen.
The same kind of phenomenon occurs during a presidential elec-
tion. Think about it: The idea of having your nation (the most pow-
erful nation on Earth) being led by someone you considered a
complete jerk would be unbearable. So what do people do about it?
They try to make the best of it, of course. A week before the 2000
presidential election, Aaron Kay and his colleagues 63 gave several
hundred people an article that presented a convincing analysis of the
election’s likely outcome. Some participants read that most respected
experts expected Bush to win by a landslide; others read that these
same experts predicted that he would have a narrow victory. Still oth-
ers read predictions of either a Gore landslide or narrow victory.
These people were then asked to rate the desirability of both Gore
and Bush presidencies.
The results showed a strong relationship between a candidate’s
perceived likelihood of winning and his desirability to voters. That
is, both Republicans and Democrats tended to rate Gore as more de-
sirable as the likelihood of his victory increased and to rate Bush as
more desirable as the likelihood of his victory increased.