This seems like a somewhat common patterns: somebody points out a fatal flaw in the central premise of a study and the authors respond “you don’t engage with our core finding” when the whole finding rests on the premise that was just illustrated to be flawed 🥲
The authors' reply states that we didn't engage with their core finding: that the cognitive dissonance effect was moderated by choice. I disagree with them.
In our commentary, we explicitly acknowledged that the effect of choice occurred, and took no issue with it.
