title: The redux of cognitive consistency theories: evidence judgments by constraint satisfaction.
abstract: The authors suggest that decisions made from multiple pieces of evidence are performed hy mechanisms of parallel constraint satisfaction, which are related to cognitive consistency theories. Such reasoning processes are bidirectional--decisions follow from evidence, and evaluations of the evidence shift toward coherence with the emerging decision. Using a factually complex legal case, the authors observed patterns of coherence shifts that persisted even when the distribution of decisions was manipulated (Study 1) and influenced by the participants' attitudes (Study 2). The evaluations of the evidence cohered with the preferred decision even when participants changed their preference (Study 3). Supporting the bidirectionality of reasoning. Study 4 showed that assigning participants to a verdict affected their evaluation of the evidence. Coherence shifts were observed also in related background knowledge. This research suggests that cognitive consistency theories should play a greater role in the understanding of human reasoning and decision making.
authors.affiliation: Law School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90098-0071, USA. dsimon@law.usc.edu
authors.forename: Dan
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Simon
authors.forename: Chadwick J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Snow
authors.forename: Stephen J
authors.initials: SJ
authors.lastname: Read
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001290:Attitude; D002203:Capital Punishment; D003071:Cognition; D003657:Decision Making; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D020407:Internet / Q000295:instrumentation; D007600:Judgment; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010549:Personal Satisfaction; D011582:Psychological Theory; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires