- Cognitive Dissonance Theory –

Why So Influential?

Traditional Persuasion Techniques

A) Greater rewards lead to more responses

B) Greater punishment leads to less responses

C) Use of "credible" sources (experts, authority figures)

D) Use of conformity paradigms (e.g., Asch, Sherif)

Some Weaknesses of Traditional Persuasion Approaches

A) Effects not very strong

B) Short-term effects

C) Limited to less important issues

THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (1957) * BASIC HYPOTHESIS

The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try and reduce the dissonance and

achieve consonance

Attitude (e.g.,

positive self-concept)

Behavior inconsistent with the attitude

Creation of dissonance

Leon Festinger

Key role of Justification

Some Options1) Change behavior (e.g., Throw pack away)

2) Change cognitions (e.g., “Smoking isn’t all that bad”; “I don’t really smoke that much”)

3) Add supporting cognitions (e.g., “ Smoking relaxes me” “it helps me think better”

Attitude: “I’m not going to smoke cigarettes anymore”) Behavior: Smoke cigarettes

~ Reducing Dissonance ~

Self-Affirmation:

Do something foolish or poor (e.g., insult an innocent person, fail on a task related to one’s self concept, continue to smoke despite intentions to quit)

Reducing Dissonance (cont.).

I’m a generous, nice person; a good spouse

Impact Bias[Overestimating the severity or duration

of one’s emotional reactions to a negative event in the future]

Not being hired for a desirable job; or being rejected for graduate school

Expect to be VERY upset ........... BUT

Justification occurs:

Company/school was not that good anyway; didn’t really want to work or go to school there. Interview was lousy; Selection process was unfair

*** We overestimate our emotional reactions because it is largely unconscious

Which would you prefer?

1)Being able to return a purchased item within 30 days

2) Being told that all sales are final

Take pictures and print 2 of them (those interested in learning about photography while participating in psychology study)

Could exchange

photographs within 5 days

Decision regarding

photographs was final

Role of Decision Permanence (Irrevocability) *

Liked their final decision

lessPredictions were wrong too! Students predicted that they’d be happier if they could keep their options open regarding the photographs (Gilbert & Ebert, 2002)

Also, study regarding confidence regarding betting on a horse:

Before placing betAfter placing bet .... More confident(Know & Inkster, 1968)

Flaw in This Logic?

• Measured 6th graders attitudes about cheating • Gave opportunity to cheat in a game

– Easy to cheat– Cheating almost necessary to win – Believed cheating could not be detectedSome cheat, some do not cheat

Next day --- • Those who cheated were more lenient toward cheating (e.g.,

“everyone does it,” “it’s not so bad”• Those who did not cheat, were more extreme in their views

against cheating (“Could have got a better grade but cheating is very wrong/not moral; cheating is awful to do”)

Dissonance Reduction and Personal Values

The Cheating Pyramid *

“It’s not a good thing”

“... but it’s not such a bad thing”

“It’s not so unethical, I need this grade”

“Cheating is really wrong; everybody

loses”

“Oh please, it’s no big deal”

“It’s disgusting! Expel cheaters!”

Effort Justification*[The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for

something they have worked hard to attain]

STUDY: College students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. Different levels of initiation used: 1) Severe, 2) Mild, 3) No Initiation.

Applied Examples: Military, Fraterities/Sororities (hazing) .....

FESTINGER & CARLSMITH (1$ - $20 Study)Counterattitudinal Advocacy *

Perform boring task

Asked to tell participant that the task was

interesting $1

$20Rate task

• Which group rated the task as more interesting after lying, those paid $1 or $20?

Key is lack of sufficient external justification for one’s behavior

~ Counterattitudinal Advocacy ~Marijuana Legalization

Original belief = “No”

Asked to give speech opposite of their

attitude (for legalization)

More positive views of legalization

Small fee to write pro

legalization

Large fee to write pro

legalization

“TOY” STUDY *Punishment & Self-Persuasion

Children rate desirability of toys

Told they were NOT allowed to play with the a desirable toy

MILD THREAT

SEVERE THREAT

Children did not play with the desired toy

Later, when given the chance, which group was less likely to play with the toy they previously liked?

Results of Forbidden Toy Study

Large Reward or Severe

Punishment

Small Reward or Mild Punishment

External Justification (I

did it for the money; I didn’t do it because I’d be punished a lot)

Internal Justification (I didn’t really lie,

the task was okay; I really

didn’t like the toy anyway)

Temporary change

Lasting change

- External Versus Internal Justification -

Hypocrisy Paradigm

Hypocrisy Group: Made a list of the times they

found it difficult or

impossible to use condoms

Applied Example: Reducing road rage – awareness of one’s own mistake while driving (e.g., cutting someone off )

Hypocrisy Paradigm & Road Rage*

Stability

Forgiveness

Participants cut off driver than get cut

off by someone after

10

8

6

4

2

0Negative intention

Don’t cut off driver

Cut off driver

~ Ben Franklin Effect ~ *[When we dislike someone, if we do them a favor, we will like

them more]- Rival legislator who did not like him; Franklin asked to borrow a

book -

Why?– Behavior is dissonant with attitude – Change attitude about person to resolve dissonance

Justification of Kindness Asked to donate $$

won to help experimenter continue research

1) Choice is involved

2) Commitment has been made

3) Individuals are responsible for any consequences of their behavior (and if the consequences could be anticipated)

4) Negative consequences are believed to be likely to occur

5) One’s self-concept is involved

6) Important decisions

7) Permanent decisions (e.g., “all sales are final”)

More Cognitive Dissonance Occurs When: *

SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY * Internal States (e.g., “So-called “private” stimuli, physiological)

“Gross” evaluation (e.g., “I feel happy”; “I feel sad”

Use of external social cues for precise discriminations (e.g., other people’s behavior or one’s own actions, statements, thoughts)

Attitudes formed

DARYL BEM

Attutude survey (on

environmental issues

WEAK STRONG

Behavioralsurvey (what

people actually did about

environmentalissues

Attitude survey (on

environmental issues

Those with weak initial environmental attitudes had their attitudes affected by

their responses to the behavior questionnaire

SELF-PERCEPTION STUDY *