Book SummaryMistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), by Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson

1-Page Summary1-Page Book Summary of Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me)

Why do people justify their questionable actions and big mistakes? In Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me), social psychologists Carol Tavris and Elliot Aronson argue that we do so to relieve cognitive dissonance. We experience cognitive dissonance when two of our thoughts, values, or behaviors contradict each other: for instance, when we think we’re good at something but make a huge mistake when actually doing it. This state threatens the consistency of our worldview and sense of self, creating mild to intense psychological discomfort.

(Shortform note: Tavris and Aronson discuss cognitive dissonance as a negative experience we should try to avoid, but dissonance can be applied therapeutically to help people create healthier behavioral patterns. For example, a person with a strong phobia usually knows their level of fear is irrational, which inspires cognitive dissonance. To reduce mental discomfort, they might avoid the thing they’re afraid of. However, the dissonance from the conflict between their rational beliefs and irrational phobia can also show them that their fear is unfounded, motivating them to overcome it. When someone confronts their fear instead of avoiding it and nothing bad happens, they’re often able to let go of their irrational fears in favor of their new, healthier behavior.)

The authors examine several unconscious processes we use to reduce the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, including self-justification, confirmation bias, and memory distortion. These biases help us to justify poor decisions that create dissonance, and by learning about them, you can begin to recognize your own...

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Summary Psychological Processes That Reduce Cognitive Dissonance

What Is Cognitive Dissonance?

As previously noted, cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable psychological state that occurs when we have two contradictory beliefs, attitudes, or ideas. According to the authors, we also experience cognitive dissonance when our actions conflict with our beliefs or our sense of self. For example, if you find factory farming practices objectionable, you’ll likely experience some cognitive dissonance if you still eat meat.

Cognitive dissonance causes minor to extreme psychological discomfort because it threatens our belief in an ordered, meaningful existence. We’re constantly trying to make sense of the world around us, and we want to believe that our actions and choices are consistent and rational. When we act or think in a way that contradicts our beliefs, we can no longer claim consistency or rationality. To relieve the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, we seek ways to eliminate the contradictions. Often, this takes the form of self-justification.

Why Rationality Is Important to Us

The authors argue that cognitive dissonance makes us uncomfortable because it reveals inconsistencies in our beliefs and irrational...

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Summary Self-Justification and Protecting Our Sense of Self

Now that we've explored the basic psychological processes behind our need to soothe cognitive dissonance, let's zoom in on the specific patterns of one of these processes: self-justification. In this section, we’ll discuss how the authors claim we justify bad decisions to preserve three commonly held positive self-perceptions: 1) that we’re rational; 2) that we’re competent; and 3) that we’re righteous.

Belief #1: I Am a Rational Person

As mentioned previously, we’re naturally inclined to believe that we’re rational actors moving through an ordered existence. The authors note that to avoid dissonance, we refuse to acknowledge any information that suggests we’ve made a decision based on something other than rationality. Self-justification helps us convince ourselves that our irrational decisions and beliefs are actually well-founded.

(Shortform note: The idea that humans are uniquely rational creatures has endured in Western philosophy and psychology since the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle posited that the ability to reason sets humans apart from other animals. However, [some modern schools of philosophy hold that the opposite is true—they argue that humans are...

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Summary How Patterns of Self-Justification Lead to Polarization

We've explored some of the major patterns of self-justification. Now, let's discuss another impact of this process: polarization, or extreme divergence in once similar people's beliefs and perceptions of the world. According to the authors, two people who start off sharing the same beliefs, abilities, values, and psychological health can become vastly different over time and lose empathy for each other through a pattern of self-justification.

Why We Seek Out People Similar to Us (And Avoid Those Who Aren’t)

Drifting apart from people who were once close to us because of polarization, as the authors describe here, can be distressing and even lead to us abandoning previously close relationships. Because we usually care about the opinions of people close to us, we experience cognitive dissonance when they have beliefs that conflict with our own. Therefore, we generally prefer to be around people who are similar to us, and we might discontinue relationships when our beliefs diverge.

Our tendency to gravitate toward people with similar beliefs, values, interests, and experiences (and avoid those we deem different than us) is called _[affinity...

Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me) Summary How to Break the Cycle of Self-Justification

You’ve just learned about the great lengths we’ll go to preserve our self-perception as rational, competent, and righteous individuals. These patterns of self-justification can drive us apart, leaving once similar people unable to understand each other.

Though self-justification is an inherent part of our psychological makeup, Tavris and Aronson assert that we don’t have to let it control us. In this final section, we’ll discuss how you can start taking more accountability for your actions and break the cycle of self-justification.

Tip #1: Accept Discomfort and Acknowledge Your Mistakes

Throughout this guide, we’ve examined how we use self-justification primarily to avoid the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. To begin taking accountability, the authors state that you have to accept the pain that comes with your mistakes and faults. By accepting uncomfortable dissonance instead of avoiding it, you can determine where you erred and how to fix it.

(Shortform note: Many of us do all we can to avoid discomfort (including the psychological discomfort of cognitive dissonance), [but being occasionally uncomfortable is an important part of personal...

Shortform Exercise: Break the Pattern of Self-Justification

Tavris and Aronson assert that we can halt patterns of self-justification by understanding how they work and what role they play in our lives. Reflect on a time when you used self-justification and consider how you could avoid it in the future.

Describe a choice you made or a thought you had recently that provoked cognitive dissonance: specifically, something that went against your usual beliefs, behaviors, and values and made you uncomfortable as a result. (For example, maybe you hurt a friend’s feelings, despite usually priding yourself on treating others kindly.)