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.

Modeling Option and Strategy Choices with Connectionist Networks: Towards an Integrative Model of Automatic and Deliberate Decision Making

“…Thagard and colleagues have demonstrated convincingly that a strategic selection of plans (Thagard & Millgram, 1995), as well as jury decisions (Thagard, 2003), could be plausibly simulated by employing a parallel constraint satisfaction (PCS) network. Furthermore, Holyoak, Simon and colleagues (Holyoak & Simon, 1999;Simon, Krawczyk, & Holyoak, 2004;Simon, Snow & Read, 2004) showed that individuals tend to increase coherence even while the decision is made. Note that such coherence shifts cannot be explained by either rational choice models or simple heuristics, which share the assumption that stimulus information remains stable during subsequent decision processes once it is represented in the mind (Brownstein, 2003;.…”

Solution aversion: On the relation between ideology and motivated disbelief.

“…Solution aversion may also be at least in part a product of people's general tendency to seek cognitive coherence (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955;Simon, 2004;Simon, Krawczyk, Bleicher, & Holyoak, 2008). As Simon, Snow, and Read (2004) explained, "Coherent representations are ones in which elements that are positively related to one another tend to wax and wane together" (p. 816). In the case of the current climate experiments, it would be highly incoherent to be averse to and nonsupportive of environmental solutions but also believe in the environmental problem, insofar as the belief in the problem may more or less imply the enactment of the specific solutions.…”

Contingent factors affecting network learning

“…Thus, actions may reform beliefs and attitudes which may recursively alter further actions. This is a process of coherence-driven processing (Simon, Snow, & Read, 2004), that enables confidence in decision-making by bringing the various pieces of the cognitive field into consonance (Simon & Holyoak, 2002).…”