Selective defensiveness or nondefensiveness: How does relative autonomy relate to excuse-making when goal pursuits do not succeed?

Relative autonomy (RA) is high when goals are value-consistent and volitionally enacted. This research compared 2 views of
RA’s influence on excuse-making after hypothetical or recalled failures to attain exercise goals: i.e., RA could reduce all
forms of excuse-making (nondefensiveness), or only those that harm continued goal-pursuit (selective defensiveness). Drawing on the typology of excuses by Schlenker et al. (Psychol Rev 101:632–652, 1994), Studies 1–3 showed that individuals with higher RA toward exercise perceived less legitimacy in, and especially avoided
using excuses that denied the goal’s self-relevance. This excuse-type, when compared with denying control, was most harmful
to commitment, and was less effective at reducing culpability. Study 4 showed that internalization of the exercise goal was
supported only when excuse-making was tolerated by an ostensible authority. Together, these findings support the selective
defensiveness view.