Navigation

Why Is It…?

“Why Is It…?” was designed by Dr. Steiner to address readers’ questions about human behavior from a social psychological perspective in order to inform and stimulate dialogue about the ways in which our thoughts, feelings and behaviors are influenced by the presence of other people. Dr. Steiner holds a Ph.D. in Applied Social Psychology. In addition to working as a university educator over the last 17 years, she conducts individual and group consultations in matters of social relationships and behavior. Readers are invited to submit their questions anonymously in one paragraph or less to Dr. Steiner at [email protected].

Q: Why is it that L’Oreal Cosmetics and Beyonce Knowles are not held to the same scrutiny and accountability as Michael Vick when it comes to behaviors involving animal cruelty and abuse?

A: Humans are interesting creatures. We possess an extraordinary capacity for abstract thought and critical reasoning – but frequently fail to adhere to our “principles” when rendering judgments about ourselves and others. In most cases, these fallacies in social reasoning give way to pervasive error-prone conclusions.

For example, in 2007, Atlanta Falcons quarterback, Michael Vick, was found guilty of funding and conducting dog fights on his property. Considered a criminal activity, organized dog fights are inhumane and involve serious degrees of animal abuse and cruelty – all in the spirit of profit and entertainment. A media blitz ensued, casting Mr. Vick’s activities into the public eye, and in so doing, demonized the “sport” of dog fights, as well as Mr. Vick’s character and involvement.

Recently, a conversation took place between my son and a young woman. The woman, being an animal rights activist, criticized Mr. Vick as being a heartless animal abuser, claiming that he shouldn’t enjoy the privilege of returning to his career as a professional football player. My son, noticing the amount of make-up worn by this young woman, made an immediate connection to the animal abuses perpetrated by the cosmetic industry in testing their product lines.

In an effort to engage the woman in a meaningful discussion about the inhumane treatment of animals, my son pointed to L’Oreal’s spokesperson, Beyonce Knowles, as an individual who supports and benefits from her association with a cosmetic industry giant who has been notorious for their continued use and abuse of animals in their “testing” facilities. He asked, “Don’t you think that L’Oreal and Beyonce are also guilty of supporting animal abuse through the cruel and unnecessary suffering and deaths of thousands of animals each year?”

The young woman vehemently opposed my son’s question – discounting the connection between L’Oreal products and sponsorship and the intentional abuse of animals. So why is it that this young woman readily condemned Mr. Vick’s actions, while overlooking Ms. Knowles and L’Oreal for their involvement in the perpetuation and support of industrial animal abuse?

While people are certainly capable of engaging in a critical, fact-based investigation of the situation before arriving at conclusions, in most cases, research has shown that people simply opt for the path of “least resistance.” These “passive-route” tactics in reasoning, referred to as heuristics, allow people to take mental “short-cuts” in reasoning – thereby substantiating their own preconceived notions and personal agendas. Not only are heuristic lines of reasoning fast, efficient and readily available (without the need for complex, mental analysis), but more importantly, they serve to protect our delicate states of psychological balance.

Humans have a need for cognitive (mental) consistency and stability. When faced with information that challenges our cognitive “comfort zones,” many resort to heuristic reasoning as a mechanism to restore or maintain our preconceived notions of “reality” and “morality.” While critical reasoning requires the careful, mindful and active analysis of a situation, heuristic reasoning allows for a knee-jerk, mindless, passive “reaction” to people, situations and events. Much like the difference between a detailed and informative documentary and the “sound-bites” that permeate our evening news reports, heuristics package information in small, digestible units that we mindlessly accept on “face-value.”

We often fail to see the connections between our own conduct and that of others we condemn of wrongdoing. While dog fights are indisputably cruel and abusive – Mr. Vick’s involvement saturated news media – making him a direct and easy target of culpability. But with a minimal amount of investigation, we can easily determine that L’Oreal has continued to utilize animals in cruel and abusive ways – long after other cosmetic companies have switched to reliable, humane animal-free testing methods. And while Beyonce may not be directly inflicting abuse on animals, she certainly is a complicit contributor in that she promotes the abusing company and benefits, both personally and professionally, from her willing sponsorship of their product lines.

Perhaps the young woman my son spoke to was thrown outside of her comfort zone by his question – realizing that her Beyonce CD collection or lipstick choice implicated her own contribution to the very behavior she so passionately opposed. While denying the substance and validity of ideas that challenge our status quo is the fast track to psychological comfort – it’s also the slow road to the deconstruction of social reality.