Bidirectional reasoning in decision making by constraint satisfaction

Recent constraint satisfaction models of explanation, analogy, and decision making claim that these processes are influenced by bidirectional constraints that promote coherence. College students were asked to reach a verdict in a complex legal case involving multiple conflicting arguments, including alternative analogies to the target case. Participants rated agreement with the individual arguments both in isolation before seeing the case and again after reaching a verdict. Assessments of the individual arguments shifted so as to cohere with their emerging verdict. A cascade of spreading coherence influenced decisions made about a subsequent case involving different legal issues. Participants' memory for their initial positions also shifted so as to cohere with their final positions. The results demonstrate that constraint satisfaction can transform ambiguous inputs into coherent decisions.