Lazy Horses
  • You and Your Team
    • Building Better Teams
    • Interactive Workshops
    • People Retention
    • The Horse and Rider
    • Managing People
    • The Two Brain Approach
  • Brands and Companies
    • Healthier Brands
  • About Us
    • Contact
  • Blog

The case of the unattractive chicken

30/4/2013

0 Comments

 
Picture
Professor Raghunathan
In April 2010, researchers at the University of Texas wanted to examine how people make buying decisions and how they support them. In one phase of their study, Raghunathan and Ph.D. student Szu-Chi Huang showed participants two photos - one of a nice looking, plump chicken and the other looking thin and sickly. Participants were told that the plump chicken was a natural chicken, and the thin chicken was genetically engineered.

The researchers informed half of the participants that natural chickens were healthy but less tasty, and genetically engineered chickens were tasty, but less healthy. The other half were told the opposite.

Overwhelmingly, sets of participants expressed a preference for the nice plump chicken… but their justifications were different. 

The first group claimed it was because they valued health above taste, and the second group said it was because taste was more important. Neither group seemed to justify their choice based on how they felt about the chicken’s looks. They felt compelled to justify their emotional choices with non-emotional reasons, to the point that the two groups found completely opposite ways to justify the same decision.

Picture
An Unattractive Chicken
“The technical term is ‘post-hoc rationalization’ and it is found in every aspect of our life, whenever we make decisions. We are ruled by our emotions first, and then we build justifications for our response. You can see this happening in hiring decisions, dating, you name it.” Professor Raghunathan said.

Logic and Reason are Valued, Emotion is Mistrusted

“In our society it is generally not considered justifiable to make a decision purely on an emotional response,” he said. “We want to be considered scientific and rational, so we come up with reasons after the fact to justify our choice.

“This process seems to be happening somewhat unconsciously, people are not really aware they’re coming up with these justifications. What is even more interesting is that people who claim that emotions are not that important, who consider themselves to be really rational, are actually more prone to fall into this trap.”

Ragunathan and Huang believe this is because once someone has denied the possibility of making a decision based on emotion, there is no other option but to come up with justifications. “You paint yourself into a corner,” he claims. “You want to portray yourself as this rational decision maker, but in reality, you’re the one who’s most likely to show post-hoc rationalization.”

0 Comments



Leave a Reply.

    Author

    James Capon is a founding partner of Lazy Horses. He feels he is rational when he needs to be. But he's probably wrong about that.

    Archives

    March 2019
    August 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    January 2016
    November 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    September 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013

    Categories

    All
    Brain
    Change
    Creativity
    Decision Making
    Decision Making
    Rational Beings
    Rational Beings
    Storytelling
    Team Building

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly