Several studies have shown that preferences can be strongly modulated by cognitive processes such as decision making and choices. However, it is still unclear whether choices can influence preferences of sensory stimuli implicitly. This question was addressed here by asking participants to evaluate odors, to choose their preferred odors within pairs, to reevaluate the odors, and to perform an unexpected memory test. Results revealed, for the first time in the study of olfaction, the existence of postchoice preference changes, in the sense of an overvaluation of chosen odors and a devaluation of rejected ones, even when choices were forgotten. These results suggest that chemosensory preferences can be modulated by explicit choices and that such modulation might rely on implicit mechanisms. This finding rules out any explanation of postchoice preference changes in terms of experimental demand and strongly challenges the classical cognitive-dissonance-reduction account of such preference changes.
AllenV.L. (1965). Effect of extraneous cognitive activity on dissonance reduction. Psychological Reports, 16, 1145–1151.
2.
BrehmJ.W. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of choice alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389.
3.
ChenM.BarghJ.A. (1999). Consequences of automatic evaluation: Immediate behavioral predispositions to approach or avoid the stimulus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 215–224.
4.
CorwinJ. (1989). Olfactory identification in hemodialysis: Acute and chronic effects on discrimination and response bias. Neuropsychologia, 27, 513–522.
5.
CustersR.AartsH. (2005). Positive affect as implicit motivator: On the nonconscious operation of behavioral goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 129–142.
6.
DelgadoM.R. (2007). Reward-related responses in the human striatum. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1104, 70–88.
7.
DelplanqueS.GrandjeanD.ChreaC.AymardL.CayeuxI.Le CalvéB.. (2008). Emotional processing of odours: Evidence for a non-linear relation between pleasantness and familiarity evaluations. Chemical Senses, 33, 469–479.
8.
EganL.C.SantosL.R.BloomP. (2007). The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science, 11, 978–983.
9.
FestingerL. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
10.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG.BeckerA.P. (2007). I like it, because I like myself: Associative self-anchoring and post-decisional change of implicit evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 221–232.
11.
Harmon-JonesE.AmodioD.M.Harmon-JonesC. (2009). Action-based model of dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 119–166.
12.
Harmon-JonesE.MillsJ. (Eds.). (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
IssanchouS.ValentinD.SulmontC.DegelJ.KösterE.P. (2002). Testing odor memory: Incidental versus intentional learning, implicit versus explicit memory. In RoubyC.SchaalB.DuboisD.GervaisR.HolleyA. (Eds.), Olfaction, taste, and cognition (pp. 211–230). New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
KahnemanD.WakkerP.P.SarinR. (1997). Back to Bentham? Explorations of experienced utility. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112, 375–406.
15.
LazarusR.S. (1984). On the primacy of cognition. American Psychologist, 39, 124–129.
16.
LichtensteinS.SlovicP. (2006). The construction of preference. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
LiebermanM.D.OchsnerK.N.GilbertD.T.SchacterD.L. (2001). Do amnesiacs exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. Psychological Science, 2, 135–140.
18.
McGregorI.Newby-ClarkI.R.ZannaM.P. (1999). “Remembering” dissonance: Simultaneous accessibility of inconsistent cognitive elements moderates epistemic discomfort. In Harmon-JonesE.MillsJ. (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 25–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
19.
RabinM.D.CainW.S. (1984). Odour recognition: Familiarity, identifiability, and encoding consistency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 10, 316–325.
20.
RosenbergM.J.HovlandC.I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components of attitudes. In HovlandC.I.RosenbergM.J. (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: An analysis of consistency among attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
SharotT.De MartinoB.DolanR.J. (2009). How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome. Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 3760–3765.
22.
VelingH.HollandR.W.van KnippenbergA. (2008). When approach motivation and behavioral inhibition collide: Behavior regulation through stimulus devaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1013–1019.
23.
WicklundR.A.BrehmJ.W. (1976). Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
ZajoncR.B. (1984). On the primacy of affect. American Psychologist, 39, 117–123.
