Människor vill uppfatta sig själva, och vill att andra ska uppfatta dem, på ett visst sätt. Därför finns en tendens att försöka rättfärdiga beteenden som kan anses tvivelaktiga. Detta beläggs i den nya experimentella studien ”‘I Read Playboy for the Articles’: Justifying and Rationalizing Questionable Preferences”. Forskarna bad manliga studenter att välja mellan två sporttidningar. Mind Hacks sammanfattar resultaten:

One had more articles, but the other featured more sports. When a participant was asked to rate a magazine, one of two magazines happened to be a special swimsuit issue, featuring beautiful women in bikinis. When the swimsuit issue was the magazine with more articles, the guys said they valued having more articles to read and chose that one. When the bikini babes appeared in the publication with more sports, they said wider coverage was more important and chose that issue. This, as it turns out, is a common pattern in studies of this kind, and crucially, participants are usually completely unaware that they are post-justifying their choices.

Finns det fördelar med denna typ av (ofta omedveten) lögn? Forskarna skriver:

First, from a strictly utilitarian point of view, it enables an individual to engage in self-serving behavior without incurring psychological costs. Second, preserving a sense of one’s morality despite evidence to the contrary allows individuals not just to see themselves as good, but as better and more moral than others (Chambers & Windschitl, 2004; Codol, 1975; Epley & Dunning, 2000). Individuals who deceive themselves in these ways may be happier than others – normal psychology is characterized by people seeing themselves as “above-average,” while depression is linked to realism (Dunning & Storey, 1991). Thus rationalization and justification can involve a tradeoff between the truth – people admitting the real reasons for their questionable behavior – and their well-being – denying those reasons leads them to be happier. We would suggest that while the benefits may outweigh the costs for an individual, those costs are likely assumed by that person’s peers: We would likely not want to be the partner, roommate, or subordinate of a person comfortable sacrificing truth for personal happiness.

Håller du med forskarna på slutet? Är sanning viktigare än välmående? Man kan också ställa frågor till dessa peers: ”Om en person i din närhet känner behov av att ljuga om sina förehavanden för att framstå i god dager inför dig, säger det något om dina värderingar och hur du framför dem? Bör du kanske mjuka upp dem? Är det du som ska sluta fördöma någon som tittar på flickor i bikini?”