Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo

Aaron C. Kay, Maria C. Jimenez, John Jost

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Integrating theories of cognitive dissonance, system justification, and dynamic thought systems, the authors hypothesized that people would engage in anticipatory rationalization of sociopolitical outcomes for which they were not responsible. In two studies, the authors found that people adjusted their judgments of the desirability of a future event to make them congruent with its perceived likelihood, but only when the event triggered motivational involvement. In Study 1, a political survey administered to 288 Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisans prior to the Bush-Gore presidential election manipulated the perceived likelihood that each candidate would win and measured the subjective desirability of each outcome. In Study 2, 203 undergraduate students rated the desirability of a large or small tuition increase or decrease that was low, medium, or high in likelihood. Under conditions evoking high motivational involvement, unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes were judged to be more desirable as their perceived likelihood increased.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1300-1312
Number of pages13
JournalPersonality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Volume28
Issue number9
StatePublished - Sep 2002

Fingerprint

Cognitive Dissonance
Students
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Psychology(all)
  • Social Psychology

Cite this

Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo. / Kay, Aaron C.; Jimenez, Maria C.; Jost, John.

In: Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 28, No. 9, 09.2002, p. 1300-1312.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{24608663bde244babca5c38a655298b3,
title = "Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo",
abstract = "Integrating theories of cognitive dissonance, system justification, and dynamic thought systems, the authors hypothesized that people would engage in anticipatory rationalization of sociopolitical outcomes for which they were not responsible. In two studies, the authors found that people adjusted their judgments of the desirability of a future event to make them congruent with its perceived likelihood, but only when the event triggered motivational involvement. In Study 1, a political survey administered to 288 Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisans prior to the Bush-Gore presidential election manipulated the perceived likelihood that each candidate would win and measured the subjective desirability of each outcome. In Study 2, 203 undergraduate students rated the desirability of a large or small tuition increase or decrease that was low, medium, or high in likelihood. Under conditions evoking high motivational involvement, unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes were judged to be more desirable as their perceived likelihood increased.",
author = "Kay, {Aaron C.} and Jimenez, {Maria C.} and John Jost",
year = "2002",
month = "9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "28",
pages = "1300--1312",
journal = "Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin",
issn = "0146-1672",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Sour grapes, sweet lemons, and the anticipatory rationalization of the status quo

AU - Kay, Aaron C.

AU - Jimenez, Maria C.

AU - Jost, John

PY - 2002/9

Y1 - 2002/9

N2 - Integrating theories of cognitive dissonance, system justification, and dynamic thought systems, the authors hypothesized that people would engage in anticipatory rationalization of sociopolitical outcomes for which they were not responsible. In two studies, the authors found that people adjusted their judgments of the desirability of a future event to make them congruent with its perceived likelihood, but only when the event triggered motivational involvement. In Study 1, a political survey administered to 288 Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisans prior to the Bush-Gore presidential election manipulated the perceived likelihood that each candidate would win and measured the subjective desirability of each outcome. In Study 2, 203 undergraduate students rated the desirability of a large or small tuition increase or decrease that was low, medium, or high in likelihood. Under conditions evoking high motivational involvement, unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes were judged to be more desirable as their perceived likelihood increased.

AB - Integrating theories of cognitive dissonance, system justification, and dynamic thought systems, the authors hypothesized that people would engage in anticipatory rationalization of sociopolitical outcomes for which they were not responsible. In two studies, the authors found that people adjusted their judgments of the desirability of a future event to make them congruent with its perceived likelihood, but only when the event triggered motivational involvement. In Study 1, a political survey administered to 288 Democrats, Republicans, and nonpartisans prior to the Bush-Gore presidential election manipulated the perceived likelihood that each candidate would win and measured the subjective desirability of each outcome. In Study 2, 203 undergraduate students rated the desirability of a large or small tuition increase or decrease that was low, medium, or high in likelihood. Under conditions evoking high motivational involvement, unfavorable as well as favorable outcomes were judged to be more desirable as their perceived likelihood increased.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=23044533128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=23044533128&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:23044533128

VL - 28

SP - 1300

EP - 1312

JO - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

JF - Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

SN - 0146-1672

IS - 9

ER -