Chapter 8

Rationalization: Finding Harmony in the Discord

When you rationalize, you do just that. You make rational lies.

—Author Unknown

Dorothy Martin talked to aliens. They told her of the cataclysm that would destroy much of the civilized world. On a fateful Tuesday, water was to engulf much of the land between the Arctic Circle and the Gulf of Mexico, destroying cities on the West Coast from Seattle to Chile in its wake. Earthquakes would rock the Midwest, devastating Chicago, among other cities. That would be just the beginning. Within the next year, the entire world would see its doom. The Tuesday when the world would see the first prelude to its horrific final act was December 21, 1954. That day came and went. The highly anticipated cataclysm did not.

Although Dorothy received her messages directly from aliens on the undiscovered planet Clarion, she was not the only one to believe the prophecy. Indeed, she amassed a cult following of 13 disciples, who had forsaken their material lives in anticipation of being rescued by spaceships on the eve of the predicted disaster. Among them was Dr. Charles Laughead, whose proselytizing of Dorothy’s prophecies to his students at Michigan State College led to his untimely dismissal from his prestigious job—and $10,000 annual salary that accompanied it (equivalent to approximately $82,000 in today’s dollars).1

In the months leading up to the prophesied catastrophe, Dorothy and her followers, particularly Charles, begrudgingly indulged curious journalists fascinated by the group’s unorthodox predictions and otherworldly messengers. One article caught the attention of social psychologist Leon Festinger and his associates. The psychologists successfully infiltrated the group, under the pretense of being believers themselves, to record the sociological phenomenon as it unfolded. The scientists ultimately documented the inner workings of the group in the now historic When Prophecy Fails. The book outlines the sequence of events on December 21, 1954, the same day that would see the beginning of the world’s demise and the rescue of Dorothy and her followers by a spaceship at the stroke of midnight.

The time is midnight. The same time the spaceship is to arrive. As instructed, the group has taken great measures to remove all things metallic from their persons, including zippers and bra straps. The group waits, but no spaceship arrives.

It’s now 12:05 AM. Someone notices another clock shows the time as 11:55 PM. The group agrees it’s not yet midnight.

At 12:10 AM, the second clock strikes midnight. There’s still no sign of a spaceship. The predicted cataclysm itself is no more than seven hours away.

It’s 4:00 AM and the group remains in stunned silence. Explanations are hollow. Dorothy begins to cry.

At 4:45 AM, Dorothy receives another message from her “space brothers.” The cataclysm has been called off. Presumably, the small group’s undying faith has reflected like a beacon of hope for the rest of the world. God has given the world its reprieve. The human race has been spared.

On the afternoon of December 21, the followers mount a publicity campaign to spread the news far and wide as to how and why destruction was averted.2

Beyond offering interesting journalistic fodder in 1954, Dorothy and her cult provided something far greater to the scientific community. Festinger’s observations of the group led to the discovery of cognitive dissonance, a natural feeling of psychological discomfort that arises when one’s behaviors are out-of-sync with one’s beliefs. However, contrary to conventional wisdom, Festinger and his associates concluded that, when such dissonance surfaces, the tendency is for people to change their beliefs to fit their actual behavior, rather than the other way around.

Dorothy may have fancied her purpose in life to be the doomsayer of the world’s ending. Instead, she and her cult followers became the poster children that gave cognitive dissonance its face. Rather than admit that the prophecies were wrong, the group continued unabated in its resolve. The prophecies had to be right. After all, the followers had already put everything—material possessions, livelihoods, relationships—on the line. The spaceship’s failure to rescue was not a failure at all, yet alone a sign that the predictions themselves were in question. Rather, the group’s unwavering faith caused a higher power to rethink a tragic ending to humankind. Thus, in fact, the prophecies were right. The group had succeeded. The sacrifice of all things lost was not in vain. The group recommitted behaviors to match irrational thoughts, taking its new message of hope to citizens across the land. To do otherwise would be inconsistent with dogma. To change those beliefs would be more painful still because the reality of the sacrifice might be too much to bear.

Cognitive dissonance is not banished to the fantasy world of cult followers or the clinically insane. It causes psychological discomfort for each of us when it surfaces. Thus, like Dorothy and her followers, we rationalize to bridge the gap between behaviors and our belief system. Rationalization helps us explain the otherwise inexplicable and gives meaning to the complicated mosaic of behavioral inconsistencies that emerge in a networked-community era.

Rationalizing the Laws

The Laws of Learned Helplessness, Illusion, and Recall are prevalent across generations and life stages in our study. They can also coexist within the same individual. Amy, our 30-something career mom, nonchalantly dismisses a friend’s warning of the potential dangers of using a laptop while wirelessly connected. Learned helplessness has taught her that determined hackers will find a way in, and rationalization takes over from there. If I have little impact in preventing a hacker from victimizing me and I already derive productivity gains from working wirelessly on my commute to work, why bother with precautions that are both unnecessary and inconvenient? Amy quickly rationalizes away why she avoids investigating the subject further. When probed further on if such investigation is prudent, Amy’s response is candid:

Amy: I don’t know. Maybe there’s a concern but I chose not to believe her [the friend who warned her about the dangers of surfing wirelessly].

Interviewer: Do you care?

Amy: No.

Amy chooses not to believe information that is inconsistent with her current behaviors, thereby avoiding cognitive dissonance and its associated discomfort. At the same time, recall has heightened her sensitivities to potential threats online, particularly those from hackers.

Recently, I’ve been reading the Stieg Larsson series on The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. She’s this little computer hacker. She gets her information from digging around in other people’s computers. It’s been super eye-opening. I mean, it’s total fiction … but it’s so eye-opening to see how hackers can get into your computer and access information.

Despite the “eye-opening” experience, rationalization again takes root, allowing Amy to write off the book—and its main character, who specializes in hacking—as nothing more than the creative musings of a talented “fiction” author. “Fiction” strikes close to home as Amy reveals that her household computer has been recently infected with a virus. Despite being victimized herself, she conveniently defers to illusion to rationalize away a persistent threat. That is, she doesn’t manage a Facebook or LinkedIn account and, given that those are the sites where these attacks occur (at least in her mind), she is confident that the virus is the result of the carefree social networking pursuits of her nanny.

Oh my gosh, our computer crashed. I do not manage a Facebook or LinkedIn account …but my nanny does. I think we ended up with some sort of virus. I’m going to blame Facebook on it because it’s an easy scapegoat.

How can the same individual, one who is successful at managing a busy career and bustling family, be the subject of such contradiction? She simultaneously dismisses the potential threat of wirelessly connecting her laptop while in commute, admits she has been enlightened by the treasure trove available to savvy hackers through her fictional reading pursuits, and has been personally victimized by a virus that led to a computer crash. When examined through the lens of rationalization, Amy’s behaviors become understandable, if not relatable.

Rationalization allows us to minimize the dissonance associated with contradictory beliefs and actions. If we believe our environment is unchangeable (learned helplessness), we forego protective behaviors that we perceive to be futile, if not inconvenient. Actions match beliefs and cognitive dissonance disappears. If we believe our actions are sufficient in protecting us (illusion), we may dismiss compelling evidence to the contrary and strengthen our initial beliefs. Again, actions and beliefs are in sync. Finally, if we succumb to external hype that may or may not be founded (recall), we may adopt those beliefs and adapt behavior accordingly. New behaviors now coincide with a new set of beliefs. In each of these cases, actions and thoughts are correlated. The disharmony associated with cognitive dissonance is minimized, if not eliminated. And, we continue to behave in ways that are not always as rational as they are rationalized.

Do as I Say or as I Do?

In 1934, Richard LaPiere embarked on a 10,000-mile social experiment. Set against the backdrop of pervasive racial prejudice in America, LaPiere traveled the country with a Chinese couple seeking service in hotels and restaurants. In each case, LaPiere remained out of sight as the couple negotiated the price of a room for the evening (hotel) or asked to be served (restaurant). In some cases, the couple was presentable. In others, they appeared disheveled. The experiment would take the researchers to more than 250 establishments, and only one time was the couple denied service.

Six months later (and with no mention of any previous encounter with the establishment), LaPiere followed up with a questionnaire to each location with a pivotal question, “Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishment?” He received responses from 50 percent of the venues. Of those, more than 90 percent of respondents answered the question with an unequivocal “No.” 3 Thus marked one of the initial forays in social psychology to assess the bridge between what we say and what we actually do.

LaPiere’s research has met its fair share of critics. Some challenge the timing of the study, in the midst of the Great Depression, as justification for why attitudes and behaviors were out-of-sync. After all, establishments were hard-pressed to turn away any paying customer during the toughest economic time of our history. Others challenge the methodology. The only conclusive way to prove that a disconnect between attitudes and behaviors existed was to ensure that the same individual who serviced the Chinese couple completed the survey six months later. No such controls were in place to verify that this was the case. Finally, not all establishments responded, leading some to question if the 50 percent completion rate was sufficient in proving LaPiere’s conclusions.

Still, LaPiere triggered an interesting social conversation that inspired additional research on attitudinal and behavioral consistency (or lack thereof). In 1937, Stephen Corey conducted his own test to measure the correlation between the two. In his seminal study on cheating, Corey observed 67 educational psychology students over a five-week period. Each Friday, students were given an exam to measure the aptitude of the week’s curriculum. The following week, the papers were returned to the students for self-grading. Unbeknownst to the subjects, the tests had already been graded, although unmarked, and recorded. Students were unaware of any checks-and-balances to verify the accuracy or integrity of their grades. In essence, the purported self-grading arrangement relied on the honor system.

Additionally, Corey measured the students’ attitudes toward cheating using a questionnaire. When correlating the students’ attitudes (either sympathy or antipathy) toward cheating with their actual tendency to inflate their self-graded exams, there was no correlation found. In essence, one’s attitude toward cheating had no predictive value for one’s propensity to commit the deed.4

When combining the LaPiere/Corey findings with those of cognitive dissonance, a complex portrait of human psychology emerges. From a cognitive dissonance perspective, it is uncomfortable for thoughts and actions to be out-of-sync, and rationalization fills the void between the two. From a research point of view, it is common for expressed thoughts to be in conflict with actual behaviors. The latter has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance. Rather, it is a combination of social expectations, self-monitoring, and/or poor questionnaire design that may lead researchers to conclusions based on what people say, not what they actually do.

Muddy the waters further with a complicated topic like technology, where attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors are influenced by one’s savviness on the matter, and the picture becomes even more complex. According to our study of more than 5,000 online consumers in the United States:

• 18 percent psychologically identify as “private” people, carefully managing what they share and where they are with others. Yet more than half in this segment also admit to regularly updating their social networking page with details of where they are or where they plan to be. Furthermore, less than one-third frequently change privacy settings on their profile to adjust what is shared with others.
• 11 percent see the world as a “scary” place—requiring care to avoid placing themselves or their family in harm’s way. Yet nearly 30 percent of this group admit to exposing their full date of birth online. Additionally, more than two-thirds confess to having offered their credit card information to a newly discovered site to make a purchase.
• 15 percent psychometrically align as bargain shoppers, those who get “excited” when finding a good deal on the things they want or need. Yet less than half in this group frequently check multiple sites to ensure that they are getting a good deal when purchasing something online. Less than 15 percent admit to frequently using mobile applications that scan barcodes in the “real” world for easy comparison shopping.

Although we didn’t physically travel 10,000 miles as LaPiere did to find these contradictions, we discovered them nonetheless. In addition, these inconsistencies measured the same respondent’s attitude versus his reported behavior in answering questions within the same questionnaire. Imagine how much greater the variability is when observing individuals in their habitats. You have already seen some of these inherent contradictions among our ethnography respondents. There are more to come in the remaining pages of this book.

The Laws in Practice

As we continue to profile consumers across life stages in subsequent chapters, the familiar Laws of Learned Helplessness, Illusion, and Recall will rear their heads. Additionally, the blatant rationalization of respondents to mitigate cognitive dissonance will also be evident. At a macro level, understanding where one fits in the larger market reveals a truer understanding of how and why behaviors are not always aligned to beliefs. For providers and marketers attempting to win the hearts, minds, and/or wallets of these consumers, the optimal go-to-market approach differs depending on the magnitude of and reason for the dissonance. As an example, take the following taxonomy to reflect the interesting market landscape that is revealed when contemplating online privacy and security, a metaphorical lightning rod in the virtual identity debate.

The Determined

In our study, 38 percent of respondents categorized themselves as security-conscious when it comes to online pursuits. According to these consumers, they do everything within their power to ensure that they are protected. However, if behavioral evidence is any indicator, their best may not be good enough. Conspicuous opt-in policies and security controls empower this market to take necessary precautions.

The Unaware

If illusion is in play, consumers may not even realize they are in harm’s way. In our study, 37 percent of respondents fall into the category of believing they are sufficiently safe online given the familiarity of websites visited and people engaged. Interestingly, there are almost as many unaware as there are determined. These delusional individuals overestimate their own defense mechanisms. Many will benefit from education on the potential dangers, but it will likely take an act of recall (either significant media hype or a situation that hits closer to home) before behavior is altered.

The Helpless

If learned helplessness is to blame, consumers may simply give up. Continuing with our security example, 12 percent of respondents fall into the category of admitting that it’s simply too complicated to fully protect privacy and security while online. What’s fascinating about this segment is that the helpless may actually be the savviest. The more likely the user is to regularly engage with technology, the more likely she is to agree with this mind-set. These individuals may understand the inherent complexity of a virtual world and will seek greater controls, not a white knight, to put them back in the virtual driver’s seat.

The Apathetic

There are always those who simply don’t care, and this topic is no exception. Twelve percent of respondents agree that online privacy and security are just not worth the time or effort. If something were to happen, they would simply deal with the repercussions. There may be learned helplessness in play for some in this segment, as witnessed with Amy’s response to potential dangers of wirelessly commuting with her laptop (why bother when a hacker will always find a way in?). The challenge for this segment is the imaginability problem we covered in Chapter 7, on recall. Often, respondents cannot even visualize what the extent of a potential problem could be. Like the unaware, these individuals will likely not change behavior until recall enters the scene.

This is just one categorization for one aspect of the virtual identity dilemma. Although one may be unaware when it comes to online privacy and security, he or she may be helpless as it pertains to presenting an idealized version of self in a virtual world. Although one may be apathetic when it comes to finding content, goods, or people unique to his interests, he may be determined in protecting himself online. There is no cookie-cutter approach to this segmentation. The power of rationalization and confluence of disparate laws create a market as complex as the individuals representing it. However, there are nuances that coalesce around identity as one matures through compelling life events. These commonalities represent the entry point for understanding individuals in a hyperconnected world—whether as ourselves or as consumers we attempt to serve.

The topic of identity is fraught with inconsistencies. As human beings, we struggle with our own contradictions. However, through complexity comes opportunity. And, technology has a role to play in enlightening the deceived, arming the helpless, and fortifying the determined. However, it is no panacea and cannot compare with our own means to rationalize the seemingly inexplicable, nor can it disrupt the truth we hold in our own belief system.

Dorothy and her converts waited a lifetime for an apocalypse that would never come. Up until her death in 1988, she preached of a new age, one when Atlantis would be raised from the deep. Despite a spaceship rescue that never occurred, her followers kept their faith and attempted to convert others accordingly. On the day before the highly anticipated cataclysm, the followers accepted calls from individuals curious about the predictions. As Charles, the formerly successful professor who sacrificed his career and material possessions, told a newspaper about the callers, “Some of them were genuinely concerned, but most of the calls were just a nuisance. We’ve been bothered by a lot of crackpots.”5 For the record, Charles himself was not a “crackpot,” at least not according to experts. After the much ballyhooed event that never was to occur, he was evaluated by a medical team and ultimately cleared from being diagnosed clinically insane. Indeed, it was not insanity in play, but something that lives at one time or another within each of us—cognitive dissonance. One can only imagine how rationalization will restore psychological harmony in a time when thoughts and actions may not always align, yet alone coincide across real and virtual worlds.