In decision situations where the primary goal of the decision maker is to earn money, non-monetary, purely affective, factors are often considered unjustifiable as a basis of and are therefore under-weighted in the decisions. When faced with two options--one superior on some non-monetary affective factor but inferior on some monetary factor (the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option), and the other inferior on the non-monetary affective factor but superior on the monetary factor (the Less-Attractive-Higher-Paying Option), the decision maker would find it unjustifiable to choose the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option. According to the elastic justification idea, elasticity in the monetary dimension may allow the decision maker to form a biased judgment of the monetary dimension in favor of the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option and thereby give the decision maker a justification to choose that option. The elastic justification idea was tested in two experiments involving an ostensible proofreading task where subjects chose between two target files: one more interesting but paying less (the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option) and the other less interesting but paying more (the Less-Attractive-Higher-Paying Option). In support of the elastic justification idea, subjects exhibited a greater tendency to choose the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option when there was elasticity in the monetary dimension of the options than when there was not, no matter whether the elasticity was such that the monetary value of the More-Attractive-Lower-Paying Option was elasticized into a range (Experiment 1), or the monetary value of the Less-Attractive-Higher-Paying Option was elasticized into a range (Experiment 1), or the monetary values of both options were elasticized through a third monetary factor (Experiment 2). Limitations and generality of the present research are discussed.