When Acceptance Kicks In, We Start Liking What We Get

We tend to be pretty happy with our choices. From hotels to jobs, from consumer goods to political views, the dominant narrative in psychology has long been that choice is the engine that drives satisfaction. We pick something, and then—almost magically—we start liking it more. But what if this story is incomplete? What if we also come to embrace outcomes we never chose at all?

That is the provocative question at the heart of “Bounded Rationalization: The Role of Acceptance in Postchoice and Postassignment Rationalization,” by Kurt P. Munz, Adam Eric Greenberg (both of the Department of Marketing, Bocconi University), and Vicki G. Morwitz (Columbia Business School) published in Psychological Review, which challenges one of the most established ideas in social psychology. According to the authors, what really matters is not whether we choose an outcome, but whether we accept it. Across seven experiments and more than 2,500 participants, the researchers show that people rationalize outcomes—even imposed ones—once those outcomes feel “resolved and settled.”

Beyond rationalizing choices

For decades, cognitive dissonance theory has argued that rationalization begins with choice. Once we decide, the theory goes, any negative feature of the chosen option clashes with the fact that we chose it. That psychological tension pushes us to downplay flaws and upgrade positive features. This is the classic “spreading of alternatives” first documented in the 1950s.

Munz, Greenberg, and Morwitz do not dispute the existence of this mechanism, but they broaden it. Their key insight is that a similar tension can arise even when no choice is involved. As they write, “we propose that rationalization is a process that is predicated on accepting an outcome.” In other words, once an outcome feels resolved, its drawbacks become psychologically uncomfortable, and our minds try to smooth them out.

Acceptance, in their definition, is not liking. It is the degree to which an outcome feels final, unavoidable, and no longer up for negotiation. You may dislike the result of a coin flip, a manager’s decision, or an assigned task, but if you accept it as settled, rationalization can follow.

Acceptance without choice

To test this idea, the authors designed a series of experiments that deliberately did away with choice. In one study, participants were told that their employer had booked a hotel for them (workers tend to accept that they have to go along with our boss’ decisions). Two weeks earlier, they had rated different hotel features. After the assignment, they rated the same hotels again. This time, people came to prefer the hotel they were assigned, not by praising its strengths, but by softening its weaknesses.

As the authors put it, participants “rationalized overtly assigned outcomes by downplaying the importance of negative features.” This pattern—central to dissonance theory—emerged even though participants knew they had not chosen the hotel themselves.

The same logic extended to more consequential settings. In other experiments, participants rationalized being assigned to boring transcription tasks, or to charities receiving real monetary donations. Whether the outcome was negative or positive, assigned by a computer or a coin flip, rationalization reliably appeared, provided participants were accepting of the result.

What makes us accept?

If acceptance is the trigger, what determines it? The paper identifies three key factors.

First, perceived choice still matters—but as an antecedent of acceptance, not as a requirement. When people believe they chose an outcome, they tend to accept it more fully, which amplifies rationalization.

Second, finality plays a crucial role. Outcomes that feel irreversible provoke stronger rationalization than provisional ones. As the authors note, “the less an outcome has the potential to change, the more the outcome should feel resolved and settled.”

Third, consent to the outcome-determining process can compensate for choice. People may accept outcomes they dislike if they believe the process was fair—whether it is a workplace hierarchy, an election, or a random draw. Conversely, when the process feels illegitimate, acceptance collapses. In one experiment, participants who were told they could choose a free gift—but then weren’t allowed to—showed no rationalization at all.

The mechanism, the authors argue, is psychological reactance: resistance undermines acceptance, and without acceptance, rationalization stalls.

Rethinking cognitive dissonance

Taken together, the findings challenge a long-standing assumption in psychology: that dissonance requires personal responsibility. “Choice has been considered a necessary condition for dissonance effects,” the authors write, “but our results challenge this view.”

This reframing has broad implications. It helps explain why people come to justify jobs, policies, or social arrangements they didn’t choose themselves. It also bridges cognitive dissonance with other theories of rationalization, from system justification to the “psychological immune system.”

Seen this way, acceptance doesn’t mean resignation. It’s a powerful psychological tool that helps us adapt, stabilize, and move forward—even when we had no choice.