What kind of reasoning is displayed when a person's prior experiences with cigarettes lead them to believe marijuana will not harm them?

The reasoning displayed in this scenario is best described as rationalization. This occurs when an individual justifies a belief or action based on their previous experiences, despite the lack of evidence that supports this assumption. The person in this case uses their past experiences with cigarettes to downplay the potential effects of marijuana. They might think, “Since I smoked cigarettes and didn’t have significant negative effects, marijuana must be similar and harmless to me.” This reflects an inclination to protect their self-image or justify their choices by connecting unrelated personal experiences.

Rationalization often involves a desire to maintain a certain viewpoint or behavior while finding a logical framework to support it. In this case, the depth of the reasoning fails to acknowledge the independent risks associated with marijuana, demonstrating how one's past can unduly influence current beliefs without sufficient justification.