chapter 6: cognitive dissonance. irrationality in decision making: sunk costs

Chapter 6: Cognitive DissonanceChapter 6: Cognitive Dissonance

Irrationality in decision making: Irrationality in decision making: sunk costssunk costs

The tennis elbow problem

Imagine you enjoy playing tennis. One day, on the court you develop tennis elbow. It is extremely painful to play. Your doctor tells you that the pain will continue for about a year. Estimate the number of times you will play tennis in the next 6 months.

Imagine you have paid $400 (nonrefundable) to join a tennis club for 6 months. During the first week of your membership, you develop tennis elbow. It is extremely painful to play. Your doctor tells you that the pain will continue for about a year. Estimate the number of times you will play tennis in the next 6 months.

Previous results from a large-scale Previous results from a large-scale study (N = 287)study (N = 287)

5.94.2

Paid $400 fee no fee

Difference significant at p < .001

Other potential examples of sunk costsOther potential examples of sunk costs

Waiting for the elevator, trains, etc Tickets and blizzards Wars, other armed conflicts? (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq)

– These latter two cases—not as clear-cut

Traditional (normative) models of decision making:

Choices should be driven by future consequences, not past expenditures

All previous examples, which are “sunk cost” problems, appear to violate that principle.

Definition of “sunk cost” problems: choices appear to be driven by past, irrecoverable expenditures

Traditional models of human motivation and decision making cannot easily explain such decisions.

You and a companion plan to go skiing at a resort. You each have paid 100 dollars for lift tickets and rental. When you arrive, the conditions are horrible—it’s cold, icy, and even the best lifts are not operating because of the wind. In addition, you both feel lousy physically and out of sorts psychologically.

Your companion turns to you and says, “It’s too bad that the money is not refundable, we’d have a much better time back home, relaxing in front of the fire. But I can’t afford to waste 100 dollars.”

You agree. But you also both agree that it’s unlikely that you will have a better time struggling with the bad conditions on the slopes, compared to being inside.

What do you do? Stay and ski, or go home?

Paid 100 dollars for tickets and equipment (decrease in net assets by $100)

Decision?Stay and ski

Lousy day skiing (minus 100 dollars)

Better day at home (minus 100 dollars)

Give up and go home

Staying at home feels aversive, because of the sense that you have “wasted” the 100 dollars. However, the past expenditure is irrelevant to your decision, because it is a constant in both cases.

Paid 50 cents for tickets and equipment (decrease in net assets by 50 cents)

Decision?Stay and ski

Lousy day skiing (minus 50 cents)

Better day at home (minus 50 cents)

Give up and go home

Paid 100 dollars for very expensive meal

(and waiter brings you three times as much food as you would normally eat)

(decrease in net assets by $100)

Decision?Eat the entire portion

Decrease dining pleasure, and now you feel fat

(minus 100 dollars)

Increased dining pleasure (and no need to go on a diet)

(minus 100 dollars)

Eat the amount you usually do

Cognitive Dissonance:Cognitive Dissonance:Theoretical backgroundTheoretical background

Models of humanModels of humanmotivation:motivation:

Classical conditioningInstrumental conditioningHomeostasis models

Metabolic Imbalance

Aversive state of arousal(hunger)

Efforts to reduce arousal

Regain consistency

Homeostasis

Psychological Imbalance

Aversive state of arousal(dissonance)

Dissonance theory can potentially explain sunk costsDissonance theory can potentially explain sunk costs

pre-existing cognition contemplated behavior

Paid great deal of money to ski Don’t ski?

Waited 2 minutes for elevator Take stairs instead?

Spent X billion in Iraq already Pull out troops?

(Red arrows represent behavior that could potentially trigger dissonance.)

Initiation rites: Aronson & Mills (1959)Initiation rites: Aronson & Mills (1959) Three screening conditions

– Control (e.g. chair, table, sad, book)– Mild (e.g. prostitute, virgin)– Extreme (obscene words--sorry, I can’t put these up!)

All participants then listen to sample tape of discussion group Discussion is horribly boring! (pre-tested) Dependent variable: expressed liking for the discussion group and desire

to join

Initiation (cost)

None (0)High (---)

Initial evaluation of group (-)

Join Don’t join

Initial evaluation of group (-)

Join

Don’t join

STRONG dissonance

+

Alternate explanations of Alternate explanations of Aronson & Mills (1959)?Aronson & Mills (1959)?

Gerard & Mathewson (1966 )

UCS (shock) UCR (pain)

CS (group)

Festinger & Carlsmith (1957)Festinger & Carlsmith (1957)

Control group

Two additional conditions Participants paid $1.00, or $20.00 to tell lie to incoming

participant DV: all participants express OWN enjoyment of task

Dependent variable: liking for Dependent variable: liking for tasktask

control $20

$1.00

Initial attitude:

“I didn’t enjoy task”

Subsequent behavior: “told other participant

that I liked task”

Sufficient justification ($20)

low dissonance

Minimal attitude change

Insufficient justification ($1)

higher dissonance

Attitude change

Practical applications of dissonance theory:Practical applications of dissonance theory:(e.g. The condom study: Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991)(e.g. The condom study: Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991)

Participants compose set of arguments about safe-sex in private vs. public

Complete survey indicating past difficulty in using condoms (control: no questionnaire)

Contexts of arguments:

Private public

survey:

yes

no

Greatest short and long term condom use

*

Necessary conditions for Necessary conditions for dissonance to arise:dissonance to arise:

Behavior must be: be perceived as freely chosen have foreseeable, negative consequences viewed by others

Also: must assume that people think of themselves as good decision makers.

Post-decisional dissonancePost-decisional dissonance

Suppose you are having a tough time choosing between two alternatives.– Choice X (x+, x+, x+, x-, x-, x-)– Choice Y (y+, y+ y+, y-, y-, y-)

Suppose you choose x– All positive elements of y, and all negative

elements of x, can produce dissonanceBrehm (1956)

evidence that arousal is directly evidence that arousal is directly mediating attitude change? mediating attitude change?

Direct self report measures: Devine, 1998; Eliot & Devine, 1994  Physiological data—Croyle & Cooper (1983)--GSR –

galvanic skin response

Misattribution studies….

Misattribution paradigmMisattribution paradigm(e.g. (e.g. Zanna & Cooper (1974)Zanna & Cooper (1974)

Pill expectations– arouse– none– relax

counter-attitudinal essayDV: attitude change

Degree of attitude change

arousenone

relax

Expectations about pill

On the Larger Influence of On the Larger Influence of Dissonance TheoryDissonance Theory

Two core assumptions throughout all of psychology:– need for consistency– People are careful and accurate monitors of

their own internal states Homeostasis model dominant force

– lingering influence of Freudintra-personal processes emphasized

Interesting phenomena associated Interesting phenomena associated with dissonance effectswith dissonance effects

The disgusting grasshopper study (Zimbardo et al. 1965)– Ss are asked to eat a grasshopper by a friend or an

enemy Which group reported greater liking for this tasty morsel?

The Ben Franklin effect– Want to get someone to like you? – Have them do a favor for you!

Hating our victims because they are victims

““On the Nature of Scientific On the Nature of Scientific Revolutions”Revolutions”

(Thomas Kuhn)(Thomas Kuhn)bedrock assumptions of an established theory

or “world views ”challenged

Nicolai Copernicus Sigmund FreudCharles Darwin

Social psychology experiences Social psychology experiences its own paradigm shift:its own paradigm shift:

By early 1970’s some bedrock assumptions in social psychology are challenged: – Homeostasis model incorrect?– Maybe human being aren’t motivated by

consistency after all.– Maybe we aren’t so good at knowing our own

feelings.– Emergence of an “information processing” view

Self perception theory (again)

“Inconsistency, [dissonance theorists] try to tell us, motivates behavior and attitude change. But I don’t believe it. At least not very much. My own suspicion is that inconsistency is our most enduring cognitive commonplace. That is, I suspect for most people most of the time…inconsistency just sits there.”

Bem (1970)

People good at assessing

own internal states through

introspection?

Assumptions about relation

between attitudes (A) and

behavior (B)

Drive for consistency?

Basic view of people as ….

Dissonance theory

YES

A B

YES

Tension reducers

Self-perception theory

NO

B A

NO

Information processors

Reinterpretation of classic Reinterpretation of classic studies in dissonance paradigmstudies in dissonance paradigm

Small vs. large incentives for writing counter-attitudinal essays– Outside observers and self in similar position,

says BemFestinger and Carlsmith (1957)

Resolution of Debate: Resolution of Debate: Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper (1977)Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper (1977)

Both theories are correct, but apply under different “boundary” conditions

Dissonance theory: – Initial attitude is strong, and person acts in ways clearly

inconsistent with it– “hot” processes mediate (tension reduction)

Self-perception– Initial attitude is weak, OR person acts in ways not radically

inconsistent with attitude– “cold” processes mediate (logical inference)

Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1977Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1977

0% tuition hike

20% tuition hike

Latitude of rejection

Latitude of rejection

Latitude of acceptance

Initial attitude

Essays written in these latitudes trigger dissonance

But self perception processes apply here

Fazio et al. 1977:Fazio et al. 1977:MethodologyMethodology

Initial assessment of attitude

Assigned to write essay in latitude of acceptance vs. rejection (all under high choice)

Participants’ expectations about room: “tense” vs. no expectations

DV: attitude change after writing essay

“Tense”

No expectations

Degree of attitude change

Latitude of acceptance Latitude of rejection

DISSONANCESELF PERCEPTION

SummarySummary

Two processes – Dissonance

Attitude change; “hot”; homeostasis

– Self perceptionAttitude formation; “cold”; information

processing