The Redux of Cognitive Consistency Theories: Evidence Judgments by Constraint Satisfaction

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86. No. 6, pp. 814-837, 2004

USC Law and Public Policy Research Paper No. 03-20

USC CLEO Research Paper No. C03-20

24 Pages Posted: 3 Sep 2003 Last revised: 17 Nov 2013

Dan Simon

USC Gould School of Law

Chadwick J. Snow

University of Southern California - Department of Psychology

Stephen J. Read

University of Southern California - Department of Psychology

Date Written: 2003

Abstract

We suggest that making decisions from multiple pieces of evidence is performed by mechanisms of constraint satisfaction. Such reasoning is bi-directional - decisions follow from the evidence, but evaluations of the evidence shift towards coherence with the emerging decision. Using a factually complex legal case, we found that patterns of coherence shifts remained constant even when the distribution of decisions was manipulated by changes in the strength of the evidence (Study 1) and standard of proof (Study 2). Similar shifts were found across participants with different attitudes (Study 3). When participants changed their preferred decision, the evaluation of the facts dovetailed with the new preference (Study 4). Supporting the bi-directionality of reasoning, Study 5 showed that assigning participants to a verdict strongly affected their evaluation of the evidence. Coherence mechanisms also influenced evaluations of related background knowledge. Implications for algebraic models of judgment (Bayes Theorem and Information Integration Theory) and for the Story Model (Pennington & Hastie, 1986) are discussed. This research argues that Cognitive Consistency Theories should play a greater role in the understanding of human cognition.

Suggested Citation

Simon, Dan and Snow, Chadwick J. and Read, Stephen J., The Redux of Cognitive Consistency Theories: Evidence Judgments by Constraint Satisfaction (2003). USC Law and Public Policy Research Paper No. 03-20; Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 86. No. 6, pp. 814-837, 2004; USC Law and Public Policy Research Paper No. 03-20; USC CLEO Research Paper No. C03-20. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=439984 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.439984

Dan Simon (Contact Author)

USC Gould School of Law ( email )

699 Exposition Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90089
United States
213-740-0168 (Phone)
213-740-5502 (Fax)

HOME PAGE: http://weblaw.usc.edu/faculty/contactInfo.cfm?detailID=307

Chadwick J. Snow

University of Southern California - Department of Psychology ( email )

SGM 501
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061
United States

Stephen J. Read

University of Southern California - Department of Psychology ( email )

SGM 501
Los Angeles, CA 90089-1061
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
72
Rank
268,007
Abstract Views
1,332