Choices, Choices, Choices...

This semester has provided with me with numerous challenges but one of the most difficult ones I have faced thus far was that of deciding where to go for graduate school. I applied to various PhD programs in the fall and ultimately went and interviewed at two schools within the past two months. Both schools were great options and came with their own advantages. I had a great experience at each university which made coming to a decision that much more difficult. I weighed the pros and cons of just about everything you could think of: did I like the city/area the university was located? What funding was I going to receive and for how long? What kind of health coverage will I get? What are the labs and facilities like? How did I get along with the faculty and current graduate students? What is the cost of living in the area? How much teaching experience will I get? Which school did I feel most comfortable and “at home”? The questions went on and on. I was essentially making a decision that would determine my future, my career, and where I would be living for the next five years. I weighed my options heavily for what seemed like an eternity. I eventually made my decision and now I couldn’t be happier. In fact, I even find myself showing stronger preferences for the school which I am going to attend. This experience paints a wonderful picture of one social psychology concept in particular: cognitive dissonance theory and how this relates to justifying difficult decisions (Brehm, 1956; Festinger, 1957). Festinger’s theory is based on the premise that people are motivated to maintain cognitive consistency so when our actions don’t match up with our attitudes, we experience psychological tension which we are then motivated to resolve (Festinger, 1957). For example, I am trying to be healthy and eat better but yesterday I ate four cupcakes. My behavior contradicts my attitude so I thus had to reduce my psychological tension by coming up with some way to rationalize my behavior such as convincing myself that it really wasn’t that much sugar and I’m going to work out anyways so it balances out. This theory also applies to instances when we make difficult decisions just like I had to this semester. Furthermore, cognitive dissonance theory states that people rationalize whatever decision they make by accentuating the positive features of the chosen option and the negative features of the option that was not chosen (Brehm, 1956; Festinger, 1957). Right after I made my decision on where I was going to attend graduate school, this effect took action. I found myself focusing on the better qualities of my chosen program (such as better funding, closer location to family and friends, cheaper cost of living, strong relationships with professors and graduate students, etc.) and pointing out the negative aspects of the program which I turned down (such as limited funding, expensive area, not as nice facilities, much farther distance from home, etc.). This has definitely been one of the biggest decisions I have ever made so of course I had to justify my reasoning for my choice.

(n=530)

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384-389.

Fetinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.