128 Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2 of view eati more of the healthy ontio an ine equal mood-lifting effects as eating from the unhealthy pendent accoun oruofailures that option.In fact,one would expect even stronger mood-lifting eannot be explained by other existing models of self-regu ation ided Ho use fee gsof guilt after ce could the questions rise the unde vided with a justific In the of the lore the evi snacks that needed to be justified.Likewise,as both nega dence for it. tive conditions were equally negative,it can be assumed th participant s in both neg d be 2 equal业 Underlying Mechanisms of Justification- out the possibility that the findings could be attributed toa Based Self-Regulation Failure difference in motivation to improve one's affective state as the alternative interpretation. This is further n this section,we will review several potential mechanism atin effe mood-lifting effects of eating. t in iustification hased se mlation fail Presumably.the widespread idea that emotions render ure (Khan Dhar,2006:Mukhopadhyay&Johar,2009),to e hardly any other studies that hav s a co our knowledge there ar .L ng me allo e.It has indeed ssions of one's moral standards are evaluated less harshly se several other p ntial underlying g from major psychological theories explaining humar emotional state compar to simila notivation, ing cognitive dissonance,anticipated mor 2003 in a ne (PI ed eati whole package of cookie despite being ona diet while fee ing s indic Prefactual Cognitive Dissonance d to fee responsibility. les t-breaking be mpagne despite he ences to their emotional state (De Witt Huberts et al.2012 cons Study 1). counterintuitive than one might e et.After all,behaving in s wishe Conclusion ratio of the Comparing the evidence for a justification-based mechanism sistent findings within psychological research is that per regulation failu 1057 uncomfortable lon may nger, in distinct mechanism which in addition to those other mecha. ined evidence com nisms,contributes to self-regulation failure. .Interestingly arison furt ctual transgression happens,while cognitive diss nance i he s that in justifications tha people may 1057 ex-pos accounted for by a justification-based mechanism We would with the broader set of psychological theories that focus on like to explicitly note,however,that the obs on that jus he eed for cogn sistency and its implications (e.g. tion pro ugge mize the d by hehavior in the it is in explaining self-regulation failure.Instead, tions might help people to resolve a conflict evoked by pro s are seen as an a xplar ation of self-regu ive behav failure tha he 1 abilityto of the and mstances self-regulatio failure is the result ofthes thinking allows to investigate the different con established mechanisms and when it is instigated by justifi experience dissonance betweer cation processes one's cognitions and the (future)behavior that one is128 Personality and Social Psychology Review 18(2) of view, eating more of the healthy option would produce equal mood-lifting effects as eating from the unhealthy option. In fact, one would expect even stronger mood-lifting effects because feelings of guilt after indulgence could be avoided. However, the data revealed that participants who were provided with a justification only ate more of the snacks that needed to be justified. Likewise, as both nega￾tive conditions were equally negative, it can be assumed that participants in both negative conditions would be equally motivated to ameliorate their current emotional state, ruling out the possibility that the findings could be attributed to a difference in motivation to improve one’s affective state as predicted by the alternative interpretation. This is further corroborated by the finding that the participants in both neg￾ative conditions did not differ in their expectations of the mood-lifting effects of eating. Presumably, the widespread idea that emotions render one powerless over one’s behavior is a compelling justifica￾tion to behave more indulgently than one would otherwise allow oneself to behave. It has indeed been found that trans￾gressions of one’s moral standards are evaluated less harshly when they occur in an emotional state compared to similar moral transgression in a neutral state (Pizarro, Uhlmann, & Salovey, 2003). Similar results were found for violations of one’s dieting intentions: participants who imagined eating a whole package of cookies despite being on a diet while feel￾ing sad, indicated to feel less responsibility, less guilt, and less blame for their diet-breaking behavior compared with participants who read the same description without any refer￾ences to their emotional state (De Witt Huberts et al., 2012a, Study 1). Conclusion Comparing the evidence for a justification-based mechanism with other accounts of self-regulation failure suggests that while a justification-based explanation may share many sim￾ilarities with other established mechanisms, it seems to be a distinct mechanism, which, in addition to those other mecha￾nisms, contributes to self-regulation failure. Interestingly, the comparison further reveals that instigators of self-regula￾tion failure normally attributed to impulsive mechanisms, such as resource depletion or negative emotions, can also be accounted for by a justification-based mechanism. We would like to explicitly note, however, that the observation that jus￾tification processes can sometimes explain findings that have been attributed to other mechanisms does not negate or mini￾mize the importance and usefulness of these other mechanisms in explaining self-regulation failure. Instead, justification processes are seen as an additional explanation of self-regu￾lation failure that co-exists with these other mechanisms. Future research should investigate under what conditions and circumstances self-regulation failure is the result of these established mechanisms and when it is instigated by justifi￾cation processes. Having established justification processes as an inde￾pendent account for explaining self-regulation failures that cannot be explained by other existing models of self-regu￾lation failure, the questions rises what the underlying mechanism of this phenomenon is. In the following section, we will explore several possibilities and review the evi￾dence for it. Underlying Mechanisms of Justification￾Based Self-Regulation Failure In this section, we will review several potential mechanisms by which justifications undermine self-regulation. Besides several studies investigating the mediating effect of a rein￾forced self-concept in justification-based self-regulation fail￾ure (Khan & Dhar, 2006; Mukhopadhyay & Johar, 2009), to our knowledge there are hardly any other studies that have directly tested the underlying mechanism. Therefore, in addition to the evidence for a reinforced self-concept, we propose several other potential underlying processes borrow￾ing from major psychological theories explaining human motivation, including cognitive dissonance, anticipated affect, and motivated reasoning. Prefactual Cognitive Dissonance Marcy’s decision to have a glass of champagne despite her strong intentions and full awareness of the possible negative consequences is, despite seemingly mundane, actually more counterintuitive than one might expect. After all, behaving in ways that run counter to one’s wishes, intentions, or princi￾ples, violates a fundamental human need for seeing oneself as a rational and consistent person. Yet, one of the most con￾sistent findings within psychological research is that per￾sonal inconsistency is uncomfortable and threatening (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance in its purest sense cannot account for the findings reviewed above, as the out￾lined evidence concerned the use of justifications before an actual transgression happens, while cognitive dissonance is concerned with the justifications that people may use to rationalize self-gratification ex-post facto (Festinger, 1957). However, a justification-based mechanism does seem to fit with the broader set of psychological theories that focus on the need for cognitive consistency and its implications (e.g., Festinger, 1957; Heider, 1958). We suggest that analogous to the reliance on justifications to resolve cognitive dissonance caused by behavior in the past, it is possible that justifica￾tions might help people to resolve a conflict evoked by pro￾spective behavior. Human beings have the unique ability to imagine the con￾sequences of their behavior in advance. This prefactual thinking allows people to investigate the different conse￾quences, and potentially experience dissonance between one’s cognitions and the (future) behavior that one is Downloaded from psr.sagepub.com at Remen University of China on September 6, 2015