Inferred justification
Encyclopedia
Inferred justification is a specific strategy to cope with cognitive dissonance
which "infers evidence which would support the respondent’s beliefs". Specifically, inferred justification is a kind of motivated reasoning
, which describes a class of strategies for dealing with cognitive dissonance.
In short, motivated reasoning means that one is motivated to arrive at a certain conclusion. In the context of cognitive dissonance, the motivation is to support a pre-existing belief. Inferred justification is a specific coping strategy in which the individual infers justification for their belief based on the belief itself.
"Inferred justification operates as a backward chain of reasoning that justifies the favored opinion by assuming the causal evidence that would support it." The individual begins with the belief and then asks, "What must be true for this belief to be correct?" The answers to that question are themselves assumed to be true facts.
and 9-11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Not the least of which are statements by George W. Bush
and others who first posited such a link later denying there was a link. According to the paper, a majority of those interviewed essentially stated that there must be a link because there must be a good reason we invaded Iraq because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
In other words they inferred justification for their belief, "invading Iraq was the right thing to do", so any claim that would support that belief was accepted as true despite evidence to the contrary.
Cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is a discomfort caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is also reduced by justifying,...
which "infers evidence which would support the respondent’s beliefs". Specifically, inferred justification is a kind of motivated reasoning
Motivated reasoning
Motivated reasoning is an emotion-biased decision-making phenomenon studied in cognitive science and social psychology. This term describes the role of motivation in cognitive processes such as decision-making and attitude change in a number of paradigms, including:* Cognitive dissonance reduction*...
, which describes a class of strategies for dealing with cognitive dissonance.
In short, motivated reasoning means that one is motivated to arrive at a certain conclusion. In the context of cognitive dissonance, the motivation is to support a pre-existing belief. Inferred justification is a specific coping strategy in which the individual infers justification for their belief based on the belief itself.
"Inferred justification operates as a backward chain of reasoning that justifies the favored opinion by assuming the causal evidence that would support it." The individual begins with the belief and then asks, "What must be true for this belief to be correct?" The answers to that question are themselves assumed to be true facts.
History
The term is relatively new and was first coined in 2009 by a group of sociologists at Buffalo University who were studying why so many citizens continue to believe there is a link between Saddam HusseinSaddam Hussein
Saddam Hussein Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti was the fifth President of Iraq, serving in this capacity from 16 July 1979 until 9 April 2003...
and 9-11 despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.Not the least of which are statements by George W. Bush
George W. Bush
George Walker Bush is an American politician who served as the 43rd President of the United States, from 2001 to 2009. Before that, he was the 46th Governor of Texas, having served from 1995 to 2000....
and others who first posited such a link later denying there was a link. According to the paper, a majority of those interviewed essentially stated that there must be a link because there must be a good reason we invaded Iraq because invading Iraq was the right thing to do.
In other words they inferred justification for their belief, "invading Iraq was the right thing to do", so any claim that would support that belief was accepted as true despite evidence to the contrary.