Outcome‐based dissonance and Morton's Fork: Evaluative consequences of unfavorable alternatives in the 2016 U.S. presidential election

The present research investigates outcome‐based dissonance in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, a context where a significant number of citizens had unfavorable opinions of both candidates. When one is faced with a choice between two unfavorable alternatives, the outcome will be the same (i.e., unfavorable) regardless of the choice. This dilemma of having multiple alternatives leading to the same unfavorable outcome is known as Morton's Fork. Our results, using a national online sample (n = 247) suggest that when given the opportunity to choose between a favorable and unfavorable alternative, outcome‐based dissonance occurs when the preferred (chosen) alternative is inconsistent with the outcome and dissonance reduction proceeds by reducing the “evaluative spread” (i.e., decreasing evaluations of the chosen/losing alternative and/or increasing evaluations of the rejected/winning alternative). In contrast, outcome‐based dissonance is diminished (or nonoccurring) when one chooses between unfavorable choice alternatives. These results suggest that valence of choice alternatives is a relevant factor in the production of outcome‐based dissonance. Implications are discussed.