Post-purchase rationalization
Post-purchase rationalization, also known as choice-supportive bias, is a cognitive bias where individuals tend to retroactively justify their past purchases and decisions, often distorting the value or quality of their choices. This psychological phenomenon occurs as a way to alleviate cognitive dissonance, which is the mental discomfort experienced when a person holds contradictory beliefs or values.
How it works
After making a purchase, individuals often second-guess their decision, especially if they encounter evidence that contradicts their choice. To reduce the discomfort stemming from doubt or buyer's remorse, they may unconsciously emphasize the positive aspects of their purchase and downplay any negative aspects. This results in a skewed perception that supports their original decision.
Examples
- A consumer buys an expensive gadget and later encounters a negative review. To mitigate regret, they may focus on the features they like and dismiss the criticisms as unimportant.
- Someone buys a luxury car and, despite recognizing its high maintenance cost, convinces themselves that it's a worthwhile investment because of its superior comfort and status symbol.
Consequences
This bias can lead to consistently poor decision-making as it prevents individuals from learning from their mistakes. In consumer contexts, it may result in continued patronage of subpar products or services. Furthermore, businesses might exploit this bias by implementing no-return policies or similar strategies, knowing consumers are likely to rationalize their purchase once it's been made.
Counteracting
To counteract post-purchase rationalization, individuals can foster awareness of their own biases through reflection and education. Actively seeking out objective reviews and feedback before making a purchase can help in making less biased decisions. Engaging in practices like writing pros and cons can also assist in realistically evaluating the outcome of their choices.
Critiques
Critics of the concept argue that this bias might not always result in negative outcomes. In some cases, post-purchase rationalization can enhance satisfaction and contentment with one's decisions, reducing stress and improving emotional well-being. Additionally, some researchers suggest that this bias might overlap with other cognitive biases, leading to potential confusion in its distinct identification.
Fields of Impact
Also known as
Relevant Research
Cognitive Dissonance and Decision Making
Leon Festinger (1957)
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology
The Effects of Choice on Learning: Are We Voluntarily Blinded?
Isabelle Brocas, Juan D. Carrillo (2012)
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Choice-supportive memory distorts metacognition: The illusion of truth
Hal R. Arkes, Daniel J. Hackett (2016)
Consciousness and Cognition
Case Studies
Real-world examples showing how Post-purchase rationalization manifests in practice
Context
A mid-size e-commerce company sought to increase conversion rates and average order value by investing in an enterprise personalization platform. Leadership approved a costly 3-year contract after a flashy demo and a high-pressure sales cycle.
Situation
During the first six months of implementation the platform underperformed: integration delays, inaccurate product recommendations, and a confusing admin interface limited A/B test coverage. The project team and vendor blamed data quality and urged additional customization and professional services purchases.
The Bias in Action
Facing cognitive dissonance over a large, recent purchase, the product and marketing teams began selectively focusing on anecdotal successes (a few high-value transactions) while discounting objective metrics showing no lift. Team members explained away missed KPIs as 'teething problems' and advocated for more spending to 'get the platform to show its true value.' Decision makers framed canceling as an admission of error, and thus continued authorizing extra consulting hours and custom development despite mounting costs.
Outcome
After 18 months the platform still had not produced a statistically significant increase in conversion or AOV compared to the prior system. The company had spent 2.1x the originally budgeted implementation amount on customization and services, and had delayed alternative investments that could have improved site performance. Leadership ultimately negotiated an exit but paid termination fees and absorbed lost opportunity costs.