The Ash Twins Blog

Wilson et al (1993) found that having to give reasons for one’s preferences seems to cause human subjects to violate their true preferences. In that study, they asked test subjects to evaluate a set of posters, some of which were paintings (van Gogh or Monet) and some of which were humorously themed. In the control group, subjects just gave a generalized rating of the posters. In the test group, subjects were asked to give reasons for why they preferred particular posters. Control-group subjects preferred the paintings, while test-group subjects preferred the joke posters. Apparently, explaining why one likes a humorous poster is easier than explaining why one likes art. At the end of the experiment, subjects selected a poster to take home with them, and again, control-group subjects mostly selected paintings while reasons-giving subjects mostly selected joke posters. Three weeks later, the experimenters contacted test subjects and inquired about the subjects’ contentment with their selected poster. Control-group subjects generally voiced contentment with their selection, while reasons-giving subjects generally expressed discontentment. The requirement of giving reasons for one’s choices served directly to reduce the benefits subjects accrued from participation in the experiment.