tour rationalization meaning

• Search Search Please fill out this field.

What Is Rationalization?

Understanding rationalization, the need for rationalization, rationalization of markets.

• Advantages and Disadvantages

The Bottom Line

• Corporate Finance
• Corporate Finance Basics

Rationalization: Overview, Types, Pros and Cons

Michela Buttignol / Investopedia

Rationalization is the reorganization of a company in order to increase its operating efficiency . This sort of reorganization may lead to an expansion or reduction in company size, a change of policy, or an alteration of strategy pertaining to particular products offered.

Similar to a reorganization, a rationalization is more widespread, encompassing strategy as well as structural changes . Rationalization is necessary for a company to increase revenue, decrease costs, and improve its bottom line .

Rationalization may also refer to the process of becoming calculable. For example, the introduction of certain financial models or financial technologies rationalizes markets and makes them more efficient. The introduction of the Black-Scholes model for options pricing, for instance, helped to rationalize the options markets in Chicago in the late 1970s.

Key Takeaways

• Product and application rationalization are two forms of rationalization.
• Rationalization is done by a company to improve its operations.
• Company rationalization often entails a change of policy or an alteration of products, and it may lead to reducing or adding employees.
• Rationalization often occurs when a company is seeking to improve its bottom line and improve revenue.
• Disadvantages to rationalization include focusing too much on efficiency at the expense of human capital, a loss of initiative from the workforce, its costliness (of both time and money), and it provides no guarantee of improved returns.

In the business world, rationalization is a process that most organizations consider. That’s because it’s aimed at improving efficiency, getting rid of waste, standardizing processes, and ultimately boosting the bottom line.

Depending on the company and strategy, rationalization can result in the expansion or reduction in the size of the firm. It can also lead to structural changes.

Specifically, the process of rationalization may involve corporate actions including sales or closures of underperforming business segments, the expansion of outperforming segments, a complete restructuring of the company’s financial structure, and a streamlining or modernizing of manufacturing or other operations.

In a large number of cases, asset rationalization results in the loss of hundreds of jobs.

Examining a company’s application portfolio is important to attain more efficient operations and cost integrations, reducing stranded costs left by a seller and streamlining the portfolio to best serve the business.

There are several reasons that a particular organization might need to go through the process of rationalization. They include the need to:

• Reduce costs
• Maximize profits
• Conserve resources
• Unlock shareholder value
• Improve transparency and governance
• Simplify the business model
• Eliminate unnecessary products and idle capacity
• Update old machinery and other business processes

The process of rationalizing is especially common during recessions and after corporate actions such as a merger, acquisition, or new CEO hire.

Types of Rationalization

The following subheads are examples of rationalization.

Products Rationalization

Product rationalization is an important part of managing a product’s life cycle. If products are not rationalized, their numbers continue to increase, adding complexity and increased support costs to the company’s bottom line. According to the 80/20 Rule, the bulk of a company’s revenue and profit (80%) comes from a fraction of its products (20%). Therefore, when rationalizing a product line , executives need to consider various factors.

The portfolio effect describes how a product’s addition or removal affects the rest of the company’s products. Sales may go to other products or be lost completely. Although rationalization may reduce complexity in the supply chain , as well as redundancy in both the portfolio and support costs, the costs can be difficult to quantify. The portion of sales that will not transfer to other products needs to be estimated and compensated for by new products entering the portfolio or the sales growth of existing products.

In addition, when products leave the portfolio, fixed costs typically remain the same; the costs must be spread across the remaining product line, increasing unit costs .

Production volume must be transferred to new or more profitable products to ensure that the business remains solvent. Also, customer migration becomes an issue, as sales and operations managers must create and carry out migration plans. This is especially important with customers buying multiple products who may leave a company that is no longer providing one-stop shopping.

Applications Rationalization

Engaging in applications rationalization, especially during mergers and acquisitions , helps companies reduce costs, operate more efficiently, and focus on supporting deal objectives, legal and regulatory issues, systems and process integration, and business continuity.

Most businesses accumulate a vast information technology application portfolio over time, especially when companies grow and do not fully integrate operations and assets with each transaction.

Many applications do not support the company’s objectives after each merger or acquisition and need revision to support the new business.

In terms of market structure, financial models, theories, and technologies that embody these concepts have the force to rationalize markets—to make them calculable and more efficient, in terms of the efficient market hypothesis (EMH) .

As more information of various types is able to be processed by information technologies, transmitted and disseminated using communications technology, and incorporated into the market microstructure, prices become more efficient and the market appears more rational.

The increased use of mathematical formulas and financial models also helps with the rationalization of markets, as they become dissociated with human emotion and fallibility.

Advantages and Disadvantages of Rationalization

Rationalization helps companies standardize business processes in order to become more efficient and boost productivity.

It lets management introduce modern techniques and systems, allowing workers to improve their efficiency levels. In turn, rationalization can lead to better working conditions and higher pay for the workforce, ultimately leading to a higher standard of living in society.

Additionally, rationalization can translate into both reduced prices and a higher standard of products for consumers.

On the other hand, rationalization often focuses too much on efficiency at the expense of human capital. The emphasis on modernization and standardization often has negative consequences such as mass layoffs, a loss of initiative from the workforce, a significantly increased workload for the workers that remain, and a worse-off work environment.

Moreover, the process of rationalization is costly, requires consistent monitoring, and provides no guarantee of improved returns.

Helps companies become more efficient and boost productivity

Allows management to implement modernized techniques and systems

Lowers market volatility

Can provide the workforce with better working conditions and higher pay

Translates into a higher standard of living in society

Can lead to lower prices and better products for consumers

Emphasizes efficiency at the expense of human capital

Often involves large layoffs

Can lead to a significantly increased workload for the workers that remain

Loss of initiative from workers due to the mechanization of processes

Costly and requires consistent monitoring

No guarantee of improved returns

What Is Asset Rationalization?

Asset rationalization is the process of reorganizing a company’s assets in order to increase operating efficiencies and, ultimately, improve its bottom line.

What Are the Dangers of Rationalization?

Dangers of rationalization include focusing too much on optimization at the expense of human capital, the possibility of negative cultural changes, and allocating capital in an ultimately inefficient manner.

What Is Rationalization in Economics?

In economics, rationalization is the process of changing a preexisting workflow into one that’s more goal-oriented and based on a specific set of rules.

Rationalization is the reorganization of a company to increase its operating efficiency. It may lead to an expansion or reduction in company size, a change of policy, or an alteration of strategy pertaining to particular products offered.

• Terms of Service
• Editorial Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Your Privacy Choices

All Subjects

Rationalization

In intro to sociology.

Rationalization is the process of replacing traditional, spontaneous, and emotional motivations for behavior with logical, calculated, and efficient motivations. In sociology, it refers to the way societies transition from a focus on customs, emotions, and personal ties to an emphasis on efficiency, predictability, and calculable measures.

congrats on reading the definition of rationalization . now let's actually learn it.

Related terms

Bureaucracy : A system of administration distinguished by its clear hierarchy of authority, rigid division of labor, written rules and regulations, and impersonal relationships.

Capitalism : An economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of goods and services for profit.

Modernity : A historical period marked by the move away from traditional modes of living to a world shaped by industrialization and rational thought

" Rationalization " also found in:

Subjects ( 21 ).

• AP Calculus AB/BC
• AP Psychology
• American Society
• Business and Economics Reporting
• College Algebra
• Elementary Algebra
• Ethics in Accounting and Finance
• Financial Accounting I
• Honors Pre-Calculus
• Intermediate Algebra
• Intro to Psychology
• Media Expression and Communication
• Modernism and the Avant-Garde
• Religion and Psychology
• Religions of the West
• Science and the Sacred
• Screenwriting II
• Social Stratification
• Sociology of Religion
• Thinking Like a Mathematician
• Understanding Social Change and Issues of Race and Gender

© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.

Ap® and sat® are trademarks registered by the college board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website..

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci
• v.6(4); 2011 Sep

The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making

Johanna m. jarcho.

1 Department of Psychiatry & Biobehavioral Sciences, 2 Center for Neurobiology of Stress, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90025, and 3 Department of Psychology, University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403, USA

Elliot T. Berkman

Matthew d. lieberman, associated data.

People rationalize the choices they make when confronted with difficult decisions by claiming they never wanted the option they did not choose. Behavioral studies on cognitive dissonance provide evidence for decision-induced attitude change, but these studies cannot fully uncover the mechanisms driving the attitude change because only pre- and post-decision attitudes are measured, rather than the process of change itself. In the first fMRI study to examine the decision phase in a decision-based cognitive dissonance paradigm, we observed that increased activity in right-inferior frontal gyrus, medial fronto-parietal regions and ventral striatum, and decreased activity in anterior insula were associated with subsequent decision-related attitude change. These findings suggest the characteristic rationalization processes that are associated with decision-making may be engaged very quickly at the moment of the decision, without extended deliberation and may involve reappraisal-like emotion regulation processes.

INTRODUCTION

Decision-making is a ubiquitous part of daily life and people often make difficult choices between equally attractive alternatives. Yet, there are unexpected consequences for making such decisions. After a choice is made between initially matched options, people no longer find the alternatives similarly desirable ( Brehm, 1956 ; Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2002 ). Rather, people adjust their attitudes to support their decision by increasing their preference for the selected option, decreasing their preference for the rejected option or both. This rationalization is thought to be motivated by the drive to reduce ‘cognitive dissonance’, an aversive psychological state aroused when there is a discrepancy between actions and attitudes ( Festinger, 1957 ; Zanna and Cooper, 1974 ; Elliot and Devine, 1994 ). In situations when decisions cannot be reversed, or when doing so requires great effort, this discrepancy is often reduced by adjusting attitudes to be in line with decisions.

Despite decades of research characterizing decision-related attitude change, relatively little is known about the psychological mechanisms supporting it. Though self-report measures can provide a detailed account of magnitude and direction of attitude change, they shed less light on the cognitive and neural processes engaged in producing this change ( Elliot and Devine, 1994 ). Moreover, attitude change associated with difficult decisions is known as ‘post-decisional’ attitude change even though most theories of cognitive dissonance are agnostic regarding the temporal course of attitude change. This name appears to reflect when attitudes are measured in the experimental process, rather than an empirically based reference to when processes driving this change are implemented. Nevertheless, the term has propagated the belief that attitude change is driven by relatively slow, reflective cognitive processes, engaged well after decisions have been made, during post-decision attitude assessment, which typically occurs many minutes after decision making has taken place (for examples see Lieberman et al ., 2001 ).

In contrast to traditional assumptions about decision-related attitude change, more recent models of cognitive dissonance suggest that the psychological distress associated with cognitive dissonance can begin to be resolved rapidly, with attitude change processes being engaged as an unintentional byproduct of decision making itself ( Shultz and Lepper, 1996 ; Lieberman et al ., 2001 ; Simon et al ., 2004 ; Egan et al ., 2007 ). These models are supported by evidence from functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies that demonstrate motor and cognitive conflict, as well as affective distress can be resolved within seconds, often as a function of activity in right inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) ( Goel and Dolan, 2003 ; Aron et al ., 2004 ; Ochsner and Gross, 2005 ). Given that deciding between equally attractive options by definition provokes conflict, and attitude change resolves that conflict, decision-related attitude change might involve reappraisal processes, which are often associated with rapid increases in right IFG, and decreases in limbic activity ( Ochsner et al ., 2004 ; Kalisch et al ., 2005 ; Lieberman, 2007a ; Tabibnia et al ., 2008 ). As such, activity in brain regions associated with conflict resolution during decision making, such as right IFG, may be associated with decision-related attitude change.

In order to investigate brain activity during decision making and determine whether conflict resolution processes occurring in that moment are associated with attitude change, we conducted an experiment with fMRI using a novel, scanner-compatible paradigm for inducing decision-related cognitive dissonance. Classic studies suggest 27–59% of subjects experience decision-related attitude change ( Brehm, 1956 ). Since the goal of the current study was to investigate the neural mechanisms specific to decision-related attitude change, an a priori decision was made to limit analyses to individuals who exhibited the phenomenon. Just as neuro-imaging studies of placebo response typically exclude non-responders from analyses ( Mayberg et al ., 2002 ; Sarinopoulos et al ., 2006 ) as a means of isolating specific, homogeneous mechanisms underlying those effects, individuals who did not demonstrate significant levels of attitude change (‘non-responders’) were not included in analyses.

Twenty-one subjects participated in a protocol approved by UCLA’s Institutional Review Board, and were paid $30 for their time. Given the novelty of the current paradigm, sample size was based on an estimate derived from a pilot study (see Supplementary Data ), which suggests 60–70% of subjects demonstrate reliable decision-related attitude change across trials. The majority of subjects (60%; N  = 12; three male; mean age 22 ± 3.42 years) demonstrated reliable decision-related attitude change across trials, thus analyses were limited to this group of interest. One other subject was excluded for technical difficulties.

Behavioral procedures

Paradigms employed in classic behavioral studies of decision-related attitude change do not conform to the constraints of event-related fMRI. In behavioral studies, subjects make a small number of decisions between similarly rated items, with statistical power generated by sample size. In contrast, fMRI samples are typically smaller, with each subject being exposed to numerous trials. We designed a novel paradigm with many more decisions than classic studies, and confirmed its efficacy in a behavioral pilot study (reported in the Supplementary Data ).

Prior to entering the scanner, subjects rated their liking for 140 names and 140 paintings on a 1 (strongly dislike) to 100 (strongly like) scale ( Supplementary Figure S1 ). Once a subject completed their ratings, one experimenter positioned them in the scanner, while another identified a subset of 80 similarly rated pairs (40 names/40 paintings), defined as ≤10 points apart on the 100-point scale, for presentation during decision making.

In the scanner, subjects were told they would be presented with pairs of names and paintings, and they were to choose which item in each pair they preferred. Because decision-related attitude change is more likely to occur when decisions are meaningful ( Festinger, 1957 ), subjects were asked to select names based on naming their future child, and paintings based on which they would rather hang in their home, with the belief they would receive posters of two selected paintings.

Stimuli were presented with MRI-compatible goggles over two counterbalanced 5-min runs (one names, one paintings). Each run consisted of 40 5-s trials during which subjects indicated by button press which item in each pair they preferred. Following the choice, the screen became blank for the duration of the trial and remained blank during inter-trial intervals, which were jittered randomly with a γ -distribution ( M  = 2.5 s) ( Wager and Nichols, 2003 ).

After exiting the scanner, subjects again rated all 280 items, then learned they would not receive posters, but were compensated an additional $10.

Quantification of attitude change scores for each item

Each item from the 80 pairs of stimuli presented during decision making was classified post hoc as selected or rejected. The 120 items that were rated twice, but excluded from decision making, were classified as ‘no choice’ items. Attitude change was computed by subtracting initial from final ratings for each item; a positive score indicates an increase in liking during the study. Attitude change for each type of item (selected, rejected, no choice) was assessed with repeated measures t -tests. Magnitude of attitude change did not differ based on order of presentation or stimulus type. Data were therefore pooled across runs and stimulus type for analyses.

Quantification of attitude change scores for each trial

An attitude change score was calculated for each decision-making trial by computing the difference in attitude change for selected and rejected items as follows:

Higher scores indicate that selected items changed in the positive direction more than rejected items. Within-subjects t -tests were performed on attitude change scores across all trials for each subject to identify subjects exhibiting significant decision-related attitude change. These subjects were included in reported analyses.

fMRI data acquisition

Imaging was performed using a 3T Siemens Allegra scanner at UCLA’s Ahmanson-Lovelace Brainmapping Center. We acquired 306 functional T2*-weighted echo-planar images (EPI) [slice thickness, 2 mm; 36 axial slices; repetition time (TR), 2 s; echo time (TE), 25 ms; flip angle, 90°; matrix, 64 × 64; field of view (FOV), 20 cm]. Two volumes were discarded at the beginning of each run to allow for T1 equilibrium effects. A T2-weighted matched-bandwidth high-resolution anatomical scan (same slice prescription as EPI) and magnetization-prepared rapid-acquisition gradient echo were acquired for each subject for registration purposes (TR, 5 s; TE, 33 ms; FOV, 20 cm; matrix, 128 × 128; sagittal plane; slice thickness, 3 mm; 36 slices).

fMRI data processing

fMRI data were analyzed using SPM5 ( http://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/software/spm5 ). Images were realigned within-subject to correct for head motion, slice-time corrected to adjust for timing within each TR, normalized into Montreal Neurological Institute standard stereotactic space and smoothed with an 8-mm Gaussian kernel, full width at half maximum. Voxel size was 2 × 2 × 2 mm. A priori regions of interest (ROIs) were defined for right- and left-pars triangularus, which encompasses IFG, using the WFU Pickatlas ( Maldjian et al ., 2003 ) and the AAL atlas ( Tzourio-Mazoyer et al ., 2002 ). Although we specifically hypothesized a relationship would occur between attitude change and activity in right, but not left IFG, both regions were assessed to determine if laterality effects were present. ROI analyses were conducted using small volume correction (SVC) with significance level of P  < 0.05 for magnitude of activation and extent threshold of 10 voxels for each of the above specified regions. We verified the false detection rate within our a priori ROIs was >0.05 using Monte Carlo simulations as implemented in the AlphaSim routine (part of the AFNI package). Whole-brain analyses were conducted using significance level of P  < 0.005 for magnitude of activation and extent threshold of 10 voxels, which provides a reasonable balance with respect to Types I and II error concerns consistent with the false discovery rate in typical behavioral science papers ( Lieberman and Cunningham, 2009 ).

Functional brain activity associated with attitude change

Data were modeled within subjects with an event-related regression analysis to determine whether brain activity during decision making was associated with attitude change. For each subject, each of the 80 trials was modeled as an event with a 5-s duration. The corresponding attitude change score for each of the trials was entered as a continuous regressor. Using this analysis technique results in each trial being convolved with the hemodynamic response function, with the attitude change score for the trial as a scaling factor for the hemodynamic response function. This analysis produced a single activation map for each subject reflecting regions significantly associated with attitude change. Results were entered into a random-effects analysis at the group level in the standard manner (i.e. a one-sample t -test at each voxel across subjects). This single-step, group-level analysis produced a map reflecting activity that reliably correlated with attitude change in the brain regions reported below.

Functional connectivity of brain regions associated with attitude change

Analyses were conducted to examine functional connectivity among attitude change-related brain regions. Psychophysiological interaction (PPI) analyses were used to quantify the extent to which the relationship between the time courses in a pair of brain regions changes as a function of the trial type ( Friston et al ., 1997 ).

New design matrices were computed for each subject, with trials categorized as having large (>10%) or small amounts of decision-related attitude change (≤10%). The differential relationship between a source region and all other voxels in the brain during large and small attitude change trials were then contrasted. Whole-brain regression analyses searched for voxels whose time course correlated with the source region more negatively during large than small attitude change trials, controlling for task design itself and the zero-order correlation between the time courses of the two regions. Results were brought to the group level for a random effects analysis, producing an activation map of regions that were functionally connected with the source region.

Behavioral results

Behavioral results revealed the expected pattern of decision-related attitude change ( Figure 1 ), replicating a prior pilot study of these methods ( Supplementary Data ). Change in attitudes toward selected items ( M  = 5.08, s.d. = 3.29) was significantly different than change toward rejected items [ M  = −5.95. s.d. = 4.07; t (11) = 9.14, P  < 0.001]. Attitudes toward selected items became significantly more positive [ t (11) = 5.35, P  < 0.001], while attitudes toward rejected options became significantly more negative [ t (11) = −5.07, P  < 0.001], and attitudes about items rated twice without an intervening decision remained unchanged ( M  = 4.35, s.d. = 14.10; t  = 1.07, P  = ns).

Average change in attitudes from pre-choice to post-choice ratings. Items were categorized retrospectively based on whether the item was ‘selected’ or ‘rejected’ during decision making, or was rated twice but excluded from the decision-making phase of the study (‘no choice’).

Neuroimaging results

Among the ROIs investigated, attitude change was positively associated with activity in right but not left pars triangularis. Whole-brain analyses further specified that within the pars triangularis, attitude change was positively associated with activity in right IFG (BA45), along with medial prefrontal cortex (BA10), precuneus (BA7), ventral striatum and parahippocampal gyrus. Bilateral anterior insula and lateral parietal cortex were the only regions throughout the brain whose activity was negatively correlated with attitude change ( Figure 2 and Table 1 ).

Neural correlates of post-decision attitude change. The left column shows clusters of activation identified in group level analyses in right IFG, medial prefrontal cortex, medial parietal cortex and ventral striatum, whose time course of activation correlated positively with the attitude change measure from trial to trial. The right column shows scatterplots of attitude change and neural activation for a typical single subject in these brain regions for graphical purpose. Each point on the plot represents a single trial.

Regional brain activity identified with event-related regression analyses, associated with magnitude of decision-related attitude change

Coordinates are in MNI space, significance based on P  < 0.005 for magnitude of activation with an extent threshold of 10 voxels. PFC, prefrontal cortex.

These results support recent models of cognitive dissonance that suggest decision-related attitude change can occur during decision making as an immediate byproduct of conflict resolution processes. The positive correlation between IFG activity and attitude change, coupled with the negative correlation between anterior insula activity and attitude change is consistent with the suggestion that dissonance reduction may partially be a consequence of IFG downregulation of distress or arousal responses in the anterior insula, via selection of more decision-consistent interpretations of the stimuli. To examine this possibility further, functional connectivity with anterior insula (5-mm sphere centered at the peak voxel of activation identified in initial regression analysis) was assessed in a whole-brain PPI analysis. Consistent with a regulation account, the time course of a cluster in right IFG [54, 30, 20; k  = 67; t (11) = 4.32, P  < 0.001], overlapping with the right-IFG activation reported above, was negatively correlated with the time course of activity in left-anterior insula to a greater extent during trials with large compared with small amounts of attitude change ( Figure 3 ).

Negative connectivity between right-IFG and left-anterior insula as a function of magnitude of attitude change. Data are representative of a typical subject. Solid circles represent trials resulting in large amounts of attitude change (>10%). Open circles represent trials resulting in small amounts of attitude change (from −10 to 10%). Derived from PPI analysis using a 5-mm sphere centered at the peak voxel of activity in anterior insula identified during initial regression analyses as a source region.

Faced with a difficult decision between equally attractive alternatives, people often adjust their attitudes to support their choice. We demonstrated that processes associated with decision-related attitude change are engaged even when making numerous decisions in quick succession over a relatively short period of time. Using fMRI, we examined brain activity while difficult decisions were made, and observed that greater shifts in attitude were associated with increased activity in right IFG, medial fronto-parietal regions and ventral striatum, and decreased activity in anterior insula. Further analyses revealed that activity in right IFG was more negatively correlated with activity in left-anterior insula during trials with large compared to small amounts of attitude change.

These findings are consistent with newer models of cognitive dissonance, which suggest that cognitive mechanisms supporting attitude change can be engaged rapidly, without extended deliberation, as a by-product of the decision-making process itself ( Shultz and Lepper, 1996 ; Lieberman et al ., 2001 ; Simon et al ., 2004 ; Egan et al ., 2007 ). A plausible mechanism underlying this change in attitudes is suggested by studies of emotion regulation, which demonstrate that selecting more desirable interpretations of threat is associated with relief from psychological distress, increased activity in IFG, and downregulation of limbic responses ( Berkman and Lieberman, 2009 ). Extending this logic to the current study, conflict or distress produced early in the decision-making process ( Supplementary Data ) may be relieved by increased activity in right IFG, which can both facilitate a shift toward decision-consistent attitudes, and modulate activity in anterior insula, which often accompanies experiences of arousal, affective distress or discomfort ( Sanfey et al ., 2003 ; reviewed by Ochsner and Gross, 2005 ). In a recent study, a positive relationship was found between activity in anterior insula and attitude change in the context of performing counter-attitudinal behavior, a situation also thought to elicit cognitive dissonance ( van Veen et al ., 2009 ). This further supports the theory that arousal, conflict or distress set attitude change in motion, however, unlike the current study, van Veen and colleagues did not identify potential neural mechanisms activated during counter-attitudinal behavior associated with the resolution of distress that presumably facilitate attitude change. This suggests that the conflict aroused during counter-attitudinal behavior in that study may have ultimately been resolved by processes engaged at a later point in time, perhaps during re-evaluation of attitudes. In contrast, decision making may involve a more rapid deployment of processes aimed at resolution of discomfort or distress generated early in the decision-making process, as demonstrated by the inhibitory relationship between right IFG and regions such as anterior insula, associated with attitude change in the current study.

The link between activity in medial frontoparietal regions and attitude change is also consistent with numerous models of cognitive dissonance reduction. Apart from conflict resolution, the most commonly invoked construct in dissonance-related attitude change is self-relevance. It has been suggested that conflicts of greater self-relevance arouse more dissonance and thus lead to greater attitude change ( Aronson, 1968 ; Elliot and Devine, 1994 ). The fact that the medial fronto-parietal areas observed here are the regions most commonly activated in studies of self-reflection and self-reference ( Lieberman, 2007a ) suggests that more self-relevant decisions produce greater attitude change. In addition to its role in self-referential processing, medial prefrontal cortex has also been implicated in evaluative processes engaged while imagining positively valanced stimuli ( Cunningham et al ., 2011 ), as well as generating goals directed at obtaining positive outcomes ( Packer and Cunningham, 2009 ). Taken together, it seems medial prefrontal cortex may have the capacity to evaluate positively valenced, personally relevant stimuli and promote action toward goals directed at obtaining positive outcomes.

Activity in ventral striatum was also associated with attitude change. The striatum plays an important role in processing hedonic information related to reward outcomes ( Delgado et al ., 2000 ; O’Doherty et al ., 2002 ), and tracks subjective value of those potential outcomes ( Knutson et al ., 2001 ). The relationship between striatal activity and attitude change suggests preferences for stimuli are potentially being assessed and updated throughout the decision-making process. Indeed, a study that utilized a similar experimental paradigm described here, but focused on brain activity during pre- and post-decision stimulus ratings, found striatal activity during initial ratings predicted subsequent selection of items, and change in striatal activity during ratings following decision making was highly correlated with attitude change ( Sharot et al ., 2009 ). Although brain activity during decision making was not assessed in that study, these data provide further evidence that attitudes are likely adjusted throughout the decision-making process.

While the current data are consistent with an emotion regulation account of decision-related attitude change, a similar inverse relationship between activity right-IFG and limbic regions has also been linked with cognitive processes associated with evaluation of stimulus characteristics more generally ( Cunningham and Zelazo, 2007 ). For example, affect-based appraisal of stimuli ( Lieberman et al ., 2007 ), inhibition or promotion of specific stimulus features during evaluation ( Ochsner and Gross, 2005 ) and appraisal of stimuli as a function of contextual factors ( Lieberman et al ., 2004 ; Wager et al ., 2004 ) are each associated with increased activity in right IFG and decreased activity in limbic regions of the brain. Thus, deliberative evaluative processes may also facilitate attitude change in the context of the decision-making process. Additional studies are needed to better clarify the role of evaluative processes, conflict and emotion regulation in the context of decision-related attitude change and cognitive dissonance more generally.

Although this investigation was not designed to address mechanisms underlying decision-making processes per se , the decision-making literature provides further support for the idea that decision-making processes may in and of themselves promote attitude change. For example, when making value-based purchasing decisions, rejecting an attractive item for purchase is associated with increased activity in bilateral insula, whereas accepting such an item for purchase results in decreased activity in the same regions, accompanied by increased activity in IFG ( Knutson et al ., 2007 ). In the current study, a strikingly similar pattern of activity was related to the attitude change associated with making decisions. Likewise, subjective value of items involved in a purchasing decision is often associated with activity in ventromedial prefrontal cortex ( Chib et al ., 2009 ), as well as ventral striatum ( Knutson et al ., 2001 ) and activity in these same regions relate to attitude change in the current study. Together, these data support the idea that attitude change may be a natural byproduct of decision-making processes, and may not always require extended, deliberative thought to occur. This does not, however, preclude the idea that deliberative processes activated sometime after decision making may also contribute to attitude change, but instead, allows for the possibility that processes engaged much more quickly and without extended deliberation have the capacity to influence attitudes as well.

The ability to set resolution processes in motion quickly when faced with affective distress has important implications. Unresolved affective conflict or distress interferes with other on-going cognitive processes, while resolution of this conflict, often via top-down inhibition of activity in limbic regions of the brain, rapidly restores processing capacity ( Etkin et al ., 2006 ). This may allow cognitive and attentional resources to be directed toward more relevant emotional stimuli in the current context. Additionally, resolving affective distress may also facilitate subsequent decision-promoting behavior ( Harmon-Jones et al ., 2008 ). If conflict or distress is unresolved, future actions toward decision-related targets may be encumbered by recurrent affective distress, eliciting re-engagement of processes directed at attempting resolve this distress. Thus, activating processes associated with attitude change during decision making may be an adaptive strategy for both engaging in on-going cognitive processes beyond a specific decision, and allow subsequent behavior toward decision targets to be less effortful.

This investigation of cognitive dissonance processes with fMRI provides new insights into the neuro-cognitive mechanisms by which making a difficult choice between equally attractive alternatives can produce attitude change (i.e. rationalization). These results suggest that processes driving attitude change may be engaged quickly, and involve conflict resolution mechanisms associated with coping with affective distress. The fact that neuro-cognitive processes engaged during a few seconds of decision making are associated with attitude change suggests that, though attitude change may appear like disingenuous rationalization from the outside, the processes driving it may in fact be engaged quite quickly, and without the individual’s explicit intention.

SUPPLEMENTARY DATA

Supplementary data are available at SCAN online.

Conflict of Interest

None declared.

Acknowledgments

For their generous support, the authors also wish to thank the Brain Mapping Medical Research Organization, Brain Mapping Support Foundation, Pierson-Lovelace Foundation, The Ahmanson Foundation, William M. and Linda R. Dietel Philanthropic Fund at the Northern Piedmont Community Foundation, Tamkin Foundation, Jennifer Jones-Simon Foundation, Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation, Robson Family and Northstar Fund. This work was also supported by a National Research Service (Award #F31 DA021951) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse and Research Training in Psychobiological Sciences (#T32 MH017140) from the National Institute of Mental Health (to J.M.J.); Neuroimaging Training (Grant #T90 DA022768) from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (to E.T.B.); a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health (#MH 071521 to M.D.L.).

• Aron AR, Robbins TW, Poldrack RA. Inhibition and the right inferior frontal cortex. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2004; 8 :170–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aronson E. Dissonance theory: progress and problems. In: Abelson RP, editor. Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1968. [ Google Scholar ]
• Berkman ET, Lieberman MD. Using neuroscience to broaden emotion regulation: theoretical and methodological considerations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2009; 3 :475–93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Brehm JW. Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1956; 52 :384–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Chib VS, Rangel A, Shimojo S, O’Doherty JP. Evidence for a common representation of decision values for dissimilar goods in human ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009; 29 :12315–20. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham WA, Zelazo A. Attitudes and evaluations: a social cognitive neuoroscience perspective. Trends in Cognitive Science. 2007; 11 :97–104. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Cunningham WA, Johnsen IR, Waggoner AS. Orbitofrontal cortex provides cross-modal valuation of self-generated stimuli. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2011; 6 :286–93. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Delgado MR, Nystrom LE, Fissell C, Noll DC, Fiez JA. Tracking the hemodynamic responses to reward and punishment in the striatum. Journal of Neurophysiology. 2000; 84 :3072–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Egan LC, Santos LR, Bloom P. The origins of cognitive dissonance: evidence from children and monkeys. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :978–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Elliot AJ, Devine PG. On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1994; 67 :382–94. [ Google Scholar ]
• Etkin A, Egner T, Peraza DM, Kandel ER, Hirsch J. Resolving emotional conflict: a role for the rostral anterior cingulate cortex in modulating activity in the amygdala. Neuron. 2006; 51 :871–82. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston: Row, Peterson & Company; 1957. [ Google Scholar ]
• Friston KJ, Buechel C, Fink GR, Morris J, Rolls E, Dolan RJ. Psychophysiological and modulatory interactions in neuroimaging. NeuroImage. 1997; 6 :218–29. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Goel V, Dolan RJ. Explaining modulation of reasoning by belief. Cognition. 2003; 87 :B11–22. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C. Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: the effect of action orientation on postdecisional attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 2002; 28 :711–23. [ Google Scholar ]
• Harmon-Jones E, Harmon-Jones C, Fearn M, Sigelman JD, Johnson P. Left frontal cortical activation and spreading of alternatives: Tests of the action-based model of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2008; 94 :1–15. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kalisch R, Wiech K, Critchley HD, et al. Anxiety reduction through detachment: subjective, physiological, and neural effects. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 2005; 17 :874–83. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knutson B, Adams CM, Fong GW, Hommer D. Anticipation of increasing monetary reward selectively recruits nucleus accumbens. Journal of Neuroscience. 2001; 21 :1–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Knutson B, Rick S, Wimmer GE, Prelec D, Loewenstein G. Neural predictors of purchases. Neuron. 2007; 53 :147–56. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman MD. Social cognitive neuroscience: a review of core processes. Annual Review of Psychology. 2007; 58 :259–89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Liberman MD, Cunningham W. Type I and Type II error concerns in fMRI research: re-balancing the scale. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience. 2009; 4 :423–8. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman MD, Eisenberger NI, Crockett MJ, Tom SM, Pfeifer JH, Way BM. Putting feelings into words: Affect labeling disrupts amygdala activity in response to affective stimuli. Psychological Science. 2007; 18 :421–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman MD, Jarcho JM, Berman S, et al. The neural correlates of placebo effects: A disruption account. NeuroImage. 2004; 22 :447–55. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lieberman MD, Ochsner KN, Gilbert DT, Schacter DL. Do amnesics exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. Psychological Science. 2001; 12 :135–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Maldjian JA, Laurienti PJ, Kraft RA, Burdette JH. An automated method for neuroanatomic and cytoarchitectonic atlas-based interrogation of fMRI data sets. NeuroImage. 2003; 19 :1233–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Mayberg HS, Silva JA, Brannan SK, et al. The functional neuroanatomy of the placebo effect. The American Journal of Psychiatry. 2002; 159 :728–37. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ochsner KN, Gross JJ. The cognitive control of emotion. Trends in Cognitive Sciences. 2005; 9 :242–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ochsner KN, Ray RD, Cooper JC, et al. For better or for worse: neural systems supporting the cognitive down- and up-regulation of negative emotion. NeuroImage. 2004; 23 :483–99. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• O’Doherty JP, Deichmann R, Critchley HD, Dolan RJ. Neural responses during anticipation of a primary taste reward. Neuron. 2002; 33 :815–26. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Packer DJ, Cunningham WA. Neural correlates of reflection on goal states: The role of regulatory focus and temporal distance. Social Neuroscience. 2009; 4 :412–25. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sanfey AG, Rilling JK, Aronson JA, Nystrom LE, Cohen JD. The neural basis of economic decision-making in the Ultimatum Game. Science. 2003; 300 :1755–8. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sarinopoulos I, Dixon GE, Short SJ, Davidson RJ, Nitschke JB. Brain mechanisms of expectation associated with insula and amygdala response to aversive taste: implications for placebo. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2006; 20 :120–32. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sharot T, De Martino B, Dolan RJ. How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome. Journal of Neuroscience. 2009; 29 :3760–5. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shultz TR, Lepper MR. Cognitive dissonance reduction as constraint satisfaction. Psychological Review. 1996; 103 :219–40. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Simon D, Krawczyk DC, Holyoak KJ. Construction of preferences by constraint satisfaction. Psychological Science. 2004; 15 :331–6. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tabibnia G, Satpute AB, Lieberman MD. The sunny side of fairness: Preference for fairness activates reward circuitry (and disregarding unfairness activates self-control circuitry) Psychological Science. 2008; 19 :339–47. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Tzourio-Mazoyer N, Landeau B, Papathanassiou D, et al. Automated anatomical labeling of activations in SPM using a macroscopic anatomical parcellation of the MNI MRI single-subject brain. NeuroImage. 2002; 15 :273–89. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• van Veen V, Krug MK, Schooler JW, Carter C. Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance. Nature Neuroscience. 2009; 12 :1469–74. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wager TD, Nichols TE. Optimization of experimental design in fMRI: a general framework using a genetic algorithm. NeuroImage. 2003; 18 :293–309. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, et al. Placebo-induced changes in fMRI in the anticipation and experience of pain. Science. 2004; 303 :1162–7. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zanna MP, Cooper J. Dissonance and the pill: an attribution approach to studying the arousal properties of dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1974; 29 :703–9. [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Dictionaries home
• American English
• Collocations
• German-English
• Grammar home
• Practical English Usage
• Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
• Word Lists home
• My Word Lists
• Recent additions
• Resources home
• Text Checker

Definition of rationalization noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

rationalization

• No amount of rationalization could justify his actions.

Take your English to the next level

The Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus explains the difference between groups of similar words. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app

Max Weber Rationalization Theory

by kdkasi | Jun 24, 2019 | Max Weber

As discussed earlier that social change is inevitable. Structure of Societies evolve with the passage of time and lead towards modernization. Modernization refer to progressive social change whereby means and procedures of production become more efficient than before. Rationalization is the core component of modernization process — when traditional societies become more rational they transform into modern societies. Which implies that, traditional societies are based on non-rational rules and procedures whereas, modern societies are based on rational rules and procedures. Non-rational does not mean that the norms of pre-modern societies did not make any sense however, it insinuates that the norms of pre-modern societies are based on traditional values or traditions. As institutions are established within societies in order to tend to the certain needs of individuals or to achieve certain goals. However, Pre-modern societies are not interested in the efficiency of rules and procedures which lead to the accomplishment institutional goals or objectives. Instead, these societies ensure that means of accomplishing objectives should be in accordance to the tradition values of society — regardless of outcome. Whereas, modern societies are focus on maximizing the efficiency in order to achieve institutional objectives.

Max Weber is among one of the founding fathers of sociology. He pioneered and presented the theory of rationalization. Rationalization refer to the formal rules regulation and procedures. He believed that societies evolve due to the advancement of science, technology, expending capitalism and bureaucratization as well as, advancement such as these take place because of rationalization. Traditional societies transform into modern societies because traditions are replaced by intellectual or rational rules and procedures within social institutions. He argued that, due to the advent of rational rules and procedures, all the incalculable forces are eliminated from economic structure of modern societies. Whereby, means and procedures of production are adjusted systematically in order to obtain and maximize profit. In addition to predictability of outcome and maximization of efficiency individuals also become professional and organized within modern societies. However, rational rules are only concerned with maximization of efficiency without considering individuals concerns. No matter if these rules and procedures are boring or exhausting for individuals. Weber acknowledges that, rationalization is no doubt responsible for many social advancement but, over a time it will become bad thing. When rationalization increase within a given society individuals will feel trapped in cage of formal rules and procedures.

Written by; Khushdil Khan Kasi

Share this:

• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

• Iron Cage Theory By Max Weber
• Evolutionary Theories and Social Transformation
• Which types of research are conducted by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)?
• Major Work of Robert King Merton in Sociology
• Strategies to Harness the Potential of Pakistani Youth
• Culture Exploitation
• The Inevitability of Social Stratification

Quickonomics

Rationalization

Definition of rationalization.

Rationalization refers to the process of restructuring or reorganizing a company or business with the goal of improving efficiency and reducing costs. It involves eliminating redundancies, streamlining operations, and optimizing resource allocation. The aim is to make the organization more competitive and profitable in a rapidly changing market.

To illustrate rationalization, let’s consider a manufacturing company that produces electronic devices. Over time, the company has expanded its product line and acquired multiple factories and facilities. However, due to changes in technology and market demands, some of these factories have become outdated and inefficient.

To rationalize its operations, the company assesses the performance of each factory and identifies those that are underutilized or no longer economically viable. It decides to close down these factories and consolidate production in more modern and efficient facilities. This consolidation allows the company to reduce costs, streamline production processes, and leverage economies of scale.

Additionally, as part of the rationalization process, the company may reorganize its workforce, reallocating employees to areas where their skills are better utilized and eliminating redundant positions. This can lead to workforce downsizing or retraining initiatives to ensure the company has the right personnel in the right roles.

Through rationalization, the company becomes leaner and more focused, maximizing its efficiency and profitability in a competitive market.

Why Rationalization Matters

Rationalization is crucial for businesses to adapt and thrive in dynamic and highly competitive environments. By eliminating inefficiencies, reducing costs, and optimizing resources, companies can improve their productivity, profitability, and long-term sustainability.

In addition to financial benefits, rationalization can also lead to improved customer satisfaction. By streamlining processes and focusing on core competencies, companies can deliver products and services more effectively and efficiently, meeting customer expectations and achieving higher levels of customer loyalty.

However, it’s important to note that rationalization may involve difficult decisions, such as layoffs or closures, which can impact employees and communities. Therefore, it’s essential for companies to implement rationalization strategies with care, considering the social and ethical implications and providing support and assistance to affected individuals.

To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.

Words and phrases

Personal account.

• Access or purchase personal subscriptions
• Get our newsletter
• Save searches
• Set display preferences

Institutional access

Sign in with library card

Sign in with username / password

Recommend to your librarian

Institutional account management

Sign in as administrator on Oxford Academic

rationalization noun

• Hide all quotations

What does the noun rationalization mean?

There are five meanings listed in OED's entry for the noun rationalization . See ‘Meaning & use’ for definitions, usage, and quotation evidence.

rationalization has developed meanings and uses in subjects including

How common is the noun rationalization ?

How is the noun rationalization pronounced, british english, u.s. english, where does the noun rationalization come from.

Earliest known use

The earliest known use of the noun rationalization is in the 1830s.

OED's earliest evidence for rationalization is from 1831, in the writing of J. Hymers.

rationalization is formed within English, by derivation.

Etymons: rationalize v. , ‑ation suffix .

Nearby entries

• rational formula, n. 1837–
• rational fraction, n. 1745–1871
• rational horizon, n. 1599–
• rationalism, n. a1732–
• rationalist, n. & adj. 1625–
• rationalistic, adj. 1828–
• rationalistical, adj. 1847–
• rationalisticism, n. 1865–
• rationality, n. 1570–
• rationalizable, adj. 1896–
• rationalization, n. 1831–
• rationalize, v. 1665–
• rationalized, adj. 1777–
• rationalizer, n. 1826–
• rationally, adv. 1546–
• rational mechanics, n. 1667–
• rationalness, n. ?1649–
• rational philosophy, n. ?a1439–
• rationary, adj. 1656–
• rationate, v. 1644–
• rationative, adj. 1650–

Thank you for visiting Oxford English Dictionary

To continue reading, please sign in below or purchase a subscription. After purchasing, please sign in below to access the content.

Meaning & use

Pronunciation, compounds & derived words, entry history for rationalization, n..

rationalization, n. was revised in December 2008.

rationalization, n. was last modified in July 2023.

oed.com is a living text, updated every three months. Modifications may include:

• further revisions to definitions, pronunciation, etymology, headwords, variant spellings, quotations, and dates;
• new senses, phrases, and quotations.

Revisions and additions of this kind were last incorporated into rationalization, n. in July 2023.

Earlier versions of this entry were published in:

OED First Edition (1903)

• Find out more

OED Second Edition (1989)

• View rationalization in OED Second Edition

Please submit your feedback for rationalization, n.

Please include your email address if you are happy to be contacted about your feedback. OUP will not use this email address for any other purpose.

Citation details

Factsheet for rationalization, n., browse entry.

Rationalization

Definition:

Rationalization is a psychological defense mechanism that individuals employ to justify or explain their own irrational behaviors, feelings, or thoughts in a rational or logical manner.

Features of Rationalization

1. Justification:

Rationalization involves providing acceptable or logical reasons or explanations for one’s behavior, feelings, or thoughts, which may otherwise be considered irrational or unacceptable.

2. Unconscious Process:

In most cases, rationalization occurs at an unconscious level, where the individual is not fully aware of the underlying reasons or motivations behind their rationalizations.

3. Self-Delusion:

Rationalization often involves self-deception, as individuals convince themselves and others that their actions or thoughts are reasonable and justified, even when they may not be.

Examples of Rationalization

1. Excusing Procrastination:

An individual may rationalize their procrastination by telling themselves that they work better under pressure, thus justifying their delay in starting a task.

2. Blaming Others:

Someone who consistently blames others for their own mistakes or shortcomings may rationalize this behavior by convincing themselves that they are always right and others are at fault.

3. Downplaying Failures:

When faced with failures or setbacks, individuals may rationalize their own shortcomings by attributing the outcome to external factors beyond their control, minimizing their responsibility.

4. False Justification for Unethical Actions:

People may rationalize engaging in unethical actions by concocting elaborate justifications, such as claiming that the ends justify the means or that everyone else is doing it as well.

• Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of rationalize in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

rationalize verb ( EXPLAIN )

• a brown study idiom
• agonize over/about something
• beard-stroking
• hit on/upon something
• I/we'll (have to) see idiom
• in the cold light of day idiom
• introspection
• run through someone's mind/head idiom
• scratch your head idiom

You can also find related words, phrases, and synonyms in the topics:

rationalize verb ( CHANGE )

• administration
• anti-bureaucracy
• bronze command
• get your act together idiom
• gold command
• have/get your shit together idiom
• party planner
• party planning
• project-manage
• rationalization
• recentralization
• vice-presidential

Related word

Rationalize | intermediate english, rationalize | business english, examples of rationalize, translations of rationalize.

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

Something that is imaginary is created by and exists only in the mind.

Treasure troves and endless supplies (Words and phrases meaning ‘source’)

Learn more with +Plus

• Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
• Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
• Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
• Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
• English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
• English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
• English–Dutch Dutch–English
• English–French French–English
• English–German German–English
• English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
• English–Italian Italian–English
• English–Japanese Japanese–English
• English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
• English–Polish Polish–English
• English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
• English–Spanish Spanish–English
• English–Swedish Swedish–English
• Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
• rationalize (EXPLAIN)
• rationalize (CHANGE)
• rationalize
• Translations
• All translations

To add rationalize to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add rationalize to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Rationalization

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Rationalization is a defense mechanism in which people justify difficult or unacceptable feelings with seemingly logical reasons and explanations.

For example, a student who is rejected from her dream college may explain that she’s happy to be attending a school that’s less competitive and more welcoming. Or after a divorce , a man may convince himself that his ex-wife wasn’t up to his standards or that the split is a blessing in disguise so he can travel more. These explanations guard against difficult emotions—feeling unworthy or unloved—that challenge one’s sense of self.

The concept of defense mechanisms originated from Sigmund Freud and his daughter Anna Freud; defenses function to unconsciously protect the ego from discomfort or distress. Although many Freudian theories have been disproven over time, defense mechanisms like rationalization have endured.

• Rationalization in Therapy and Mental Health
• Rationalization in Everyday Life

Many instances of rationalization can be relatively harmless. Producing a rationale that makes yourself feel better, even if it’s not completely honest, is sometimes a helpful coping strategy.

But rationalization can harm mental health if it becomes a frequent pattern or prevents someone from moving forward in life, personally or professionally. In these instances, it can be valuable to make the unconscious conscious, often with the help of a therapist.

A therapist can help a patient acknowledge and accept difficult truths, overcome patterns that hold them back, take responsibility for past mistakes so they don’t happen again, and forge stronger relationships. Accepting the truth leads to the possibility of change and growth.

People strive to preserve a positive view of themselves. One component of this motivation is the desire to reduce cognitive dissonance , the discomfort of holding contradictory beliefs. Let’s say a young man isn't hired after a job interview. This leads to cognitive dissonance due to the opposing thoughts that 1) he is smart and experienced 2) he failed to land the job.

Rationalizing that contradiction with thoughts such as, “This company is just really close-minded,” or, “Taking time off will be a great opportunity” reduces that psychological discomfort.

Rationalization can take two forms: “Sour grapes” refers to an explanation that avoids difficult information and “sweet lemons” is an explanation that makes the situation seem more palatable.

The idea of sour grapes is said to derive from one of Aesop’s fables, The Fox and the Grapes, in which a fox repeatedly jumps toward a branch on a tree, trying to eat a bunch of grapes just out of reach. He eventually gives up and says, “I am sure the grapes are sour.” A “sweet lemons” rationalization in that situation would be something like, “There will be juicer grapes in the next orchard.”

A therapist may observe instances in which a person consistently offers seemingly confusing excuses or reasoning, and then ask questions to understand if the patient may be obscuring deeper emotions.

For example, if a patient refuses to send his kids to sleepovers, staunchly claiming that children should always be focused on schoolwork, the therapist might probe his response and later discover that he was abused during a sleepover as a child. The therapist can then help the patient process that experience and develop coping skills to move forward.

People may not recognize when they make excuses for their behavior or others’. One way to overcome this defense mechanism is to develop the ability to accept the truth without that harming your entire identity . Even if you failed to achieve a goal or faced bitter rejection, acknowledge the loss and recognize that everyone makes mistakes or faces obstacles at times.

In the world of defense mechanisms , rationalization is fairly common. People may not realize when they offer a small excuse or justification. Although this is natural, confronting reality, even when it’s difficult, can be an important step to changing harmful habits in realms such as relationships, finances, and more.

A few common patterns signal that rationalization may be at play, especially when people receive negative feedback. Common responses include blaming (“The problem is the people around me. I hire badly.”), minimizing (“It’s really not such a big deal”), deflecting (“That’s not the real issue”), and attacking (“I may have done X but you did Y”). 

However, it’s important to note that not everyone who uses these phrases may be rationalizing. They may be valid or necessary points to discuss, so it’s best to go into a conversation assuming honesty.

It can be difficult for people to notice when they rationalize, because it feels better to believe their excuses than admit they caused a problem. Maybe an individual didn’t follow through on a commitment, so instead points out what he did do: “I didn’t get to the dishes, but I worked hard at the office.” Maybe he claims his behavior could have been worse: “I don’t babysit our daughter, but I am better than my dad, who was never around.”

Rationalization can weaken relationships, but sincerely apologizing and taking responsibility can strengthen them.

People rationalize an array of poor decisions, which may include financial ones. For example, someone may buy a luxury item they can’t afford and rationalize it by saying, “I know I can’t afford this, but I never buy myself anything nice and this is something I really want."

These habits can be hard to overcome, because emotion can disguise itself as intuition or logic. For example, “I bought this new tablet because my old one was going to die soon and this one was on sale.” This rationalization omits points of logical reasoning such as, “Although it was on sale, there were still cheaper, equally suitable options,” or, “Do I really need a tablet when I have a phone and laptop?” Acknowledging the power of emotions can help facilitate better reasoning and financial choices.

Ready to soar? Find your rhythm, conquer life's hills, and discover unstoppable resilience. This simple mindset shift will change everything, even when the road gets bumpy.

Is compulsive travel an attempt to bolster identity, to be known as someone who goes places and does things? Read on.

The next time you get a "gut feeling" about something, don't ignore it.

They're also signals that an apology isn't coming anytime soon.

Just because procrastination can be a coping strategy doesn’t make it a good excuse or mean that it’s an adaptive coping mechanism. Developing better strategies is vital.

Usually, our attempts to misdirect others are efforts to convince ourselves we are the people we say we are.

We’ve all avoided things because we were “too busy” or “too tired.” But have our excuses become too convenient?

Unlock the hidden power of intuition in decision-making. Explore how subconscious patterns shape our choices profoundly.

Learn to navigate passive-aggressive behavior to feel better and enjoy more success at work.

Despite the bombardment of societal messages to never quit, sometimes changing course is exactly what you should do.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Centre
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• Calgary, AB
• Edmonton, AB
• Hamilton, ON
• Montréal, QC
• Toronto, ON
• Vancouver, BC
• Winnipeg, MB
• Mississauga, ON
• Oakville, ON
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

It’s increasingly common for someone to be diagnosed with a condition such as ADHD or autism as an adult. A diagnosis often brings relief, but it can also come with as many questions as answers.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

• More from M-W
• To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

rationalize

Definition of rationalize

transitive verb

intransitive verb

• account (for)
• explain away

Examples of rationalize in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'rationalize.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

1665, in the meaning defined at transitive sense 1

Dictionary Entries Near rationalize

rationalization

rational number

Cite this Entry

“Rationalize.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rationalize. Accessed 11 Sep. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of rationalize, medical definition, medical definition of rationalize, more from merriam-webster on rationalize.

Nglish: Translation of rationalize for Spanish Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day, chockablock.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Plural and possessive names: a guide, 31 useful rhetorical devices, more commonly misspelled words, absent letters that are heard anyway, how to use accents and diacritical marks, popular in wordplay, 8 words for lesser-known musical instruments, it's a scorcher words for the summer heat, 7 shakespearean insults to make life more interesting, 10 words from taylor swift songs (merriam's version), 9 superb owl words, games & quizzes.