<p><strong>Research:</strong></p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rationalization</a> is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism" rel="nofollow noreferrer">defence mechanism</a> - a Freudian (read: outdated) construct that is still in common use in clinical psychology, but no longer used much in research, so current studies about such mechanisms are hard to come by.</p>
<p>To some degree, rationalization has been superseded by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cognitive dissonance</a>, and related <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-perception_theory" rel="nofollow noreferrer">self-perception theory</a>.  This is a more general theory about rationalizing that includes normal, healthy ways of dealing with internal conflict, as well as pathological forms.  However, this line of research has focused mostly on theorized unconscious rationalizing, rather than verbal explanations provided by subjects.  There are many other lines of research into verbalized non-pathological rationalizing, which is very common.</p>
<p><strong>Therapy:</strong></p>
<p>In modern cognitive therapies, the concept of <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion" rel="nofollow noreferrer">cognitive distortions</a> generally supersedes rationalization.  Clinicians are specially trained to detect many varieties of cognitive distortion in patients, including <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_%28psychology%29" rel="nofollow noreferrer">minimisation</a>, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualization" rel="nofollow noreferrer">intellectualization</a>, and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes" rel="nofollow noreferrer">sour grapes</a>.  In general, the idea is to look for inconsistencies or contradictions in the patient's descriptions of their thinking.  For example, a patient might say: &quot;Cheating on my spouse was a desperate call for attention.&quot;  That might sound logical at first blush, but then why hide it?  Or why not choose a healthier way to get attention?</p>
<p>Confronting patients with inconsistencies in their thinking is a common part of several traditions of therapy.  One of the hallmarks of many <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder" rel="nofollow noreferrer">personality disorders</a> is patients' inability to <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#Attribution" rel="nofollow noreferrer">recognize</a> or failure to admit to the inconsistencies in their thinking.  For most patients without symptoms of a personality disorder however, it is expected that they should confront, recognize, accept, and ultimately find <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_restructuring" rel="nofollow noreferrer">healthier alternatives</a> to their maladaptive distortions.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2019-02-26T11:26:11.960Z
is the concept scientific/measurable/falsifiable?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2015-08-18T06:50:35.557Z
2021-05-07T04:57:01.113Z
2021-05-07T04:57:01.113Z
Arnon Weinberg
<blockquote>
  <p>In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3] - <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29" rel="noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p><strong>Is it possible to objectively recognize that someone is rationalizing?</strong></p>

<p><strong>Is it possible to make an individual realize that s\he is rationalizing when it happens?</strong></p>

<p><strong>Is it possible to assess an individual's tendency to rationalize?</strong></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-02-26T04:41:48.583Z
Related: [Can one claim that a person is having cognitive distortion and be always correct?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/24934/12937)
Ooker
<emotion><measurement><rationality>
Can rationalization be objectively recognized?
Berit Larsen
# Can rationalization be objectively recognized?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-08-11)

> In psychology and logic, rationalization or rationalisation (also known as making excuses[1]) is a defense mechanism in which controversial behaviors or feelings are justified and explained in a seemingly rational or logical manner to avoid the true explanation, and are made consciously tolerable – or even admirable and superior – by plausible means.[2] It is also an informal fallacy of reasoning.[3] - <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29>

**Is it possible to objectively recognize that someone is rationalizing?**

**Is it possible to make an individual realize that s\he is rationalizing when it happens?**

**Is it possible to assess an individual's tendency to rationalize?**

**Tags:** emotion, measurement, rationality

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Related: [Can one claim that a person is having cognitive distortion and be always correct?](https://psychology.stackexchange.com/q/24934/12937)  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-08-18. Score: 4

**Research:**

[Rationalization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalization_%28psychology%29) is a [defence mechanism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) - a Freudian (read: outdated) construct that is still in common use in clinical psychology, but no longer used much in research, so current studies about such mechanisms are hard to come by.

To some degree, rationalization has been superseded by [cognitive dissonance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance), and related [self-perception theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-perception_theory). This is a more general theory about rationalizing that includes normal, healthy ways of dealing with internal conflict, as well as pathological forms. However, this line of research has focused mostly on theorized unconscious rationalizing, rather than verbal explanations provided by subjects. There are many other lines of research into verbalized non-pathological rationalizing, which is very common.

**Therapy:**

In modern cognitive therapies, the concept of [cognitive distortions](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_distortion) generally supersedes rationalization. Clinicians are specially trained to detect many varieties of cognitive distortion in patients, including [minimisation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimisation_%28psychology%29), [intellectualization](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectualization), and [sour grapes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sour_grapes). In general, the idea is to look for inconsistencies or contradictions in the patient's descriptions of their thinking. For example, a patient might say: "Cheating on my spouse was a desperate call for attention." That might sound logical at first blush, but then why hide it? Or why not choose a healthier way to get attention?

Confronting patients with inconsistencies in their thinking is a common part of several traditions of therapy. One of the hallmarks of many [personality disorders](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder) is patients' inability to [recognize](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder#Attribution) or failure to admit to the inconsistencies in their thinking. For most patients without symptoms of a personality disorder however, it is expected that they should confront, recognize, accept, and ultimately find [healthier alternatives](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_restructuring) to their maladaptive distortions.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: is the concept scientific/measurable/falsifiable?  

---

