- 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
Leon Festinger
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 selfconcept)
Behavior inconsistent
with the attitude
Creation of
dissonance
Overview of Basic Cognitive Dissonance
Carol Tavris YouTube
interview: Here
~ Reducing Dissonance ~
Attitude: “I’m not going to smoke cigarettes anymore”)
Behavior: Smoke cigarettes
Some Options
1) 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”
Reducing Dissonance (cont.).
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)
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
Dissonance and Self-Esteem
Who experiences more dissonance after doing something cruel or
foolish, those with high self esteem of those with low self esteem?
Keeping Self-Concept Consistent With Behavior
(Self-esteem example)
Personality Test Feedback (fake)
1) Positive feedback (interesting,
mature)
2) Negative feedback (immature,
uninteresting)
3) No feedback
People receiving
positive feedback were
less likely to cheat in a
follow-up card game
when given the chance
People receiving
negative feedback were
most likely to cheat in
a follow-up card game
when given the chance
Rational Behavior Versus Rationalizing
Behavior
Need to maintain our self-esteem leads to non-rational thought –motivated
to convince ourselves we are right
Memory
Strong “Pro” Position
on an Issue
Strong “Con” Position
on an Issue
Plausible, reasonable pro
and con arguments
“Silly,” implausible pro
and con arguments
Best recall for 1)
reasonable arguments
for one’s own position
and 2) implausible,
silly ones fore the
opposing side
Prediction -- Dissonance produced when 1)
reasonable position presented against your own
views and 2) silly arguments presented
supporting your positions = try to ignore these
Post-Decision Dissonance
Every time we make a decision, we experience some dissonance
•
Chosen alternative has some negative aspects
•
Rejected alternative has some positive aspects
This dissonance is often reduced by:
1) Enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative (& reduce negative
aspects)
2) Devaluating the rejected alternatives (& downplay positive aspects)
Example(s)?
Which would you prefer?
1) Being able to return a purchased item
within 30 days
2) Being told that all sales are final
Role of Decision Permanence (Irrevocability)
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
Also, study regarding confidence
regarding betting on a horse:
Liked their final
decision less
Before placing bet
After placing bet .... More confident
(Know & Inkster, 1968)
Predictions were wrong too! Students predicted that they’d be happier if they could
keep their options open regarding the photographs (Gilbert & Ebert, 2002)
Flaw in This Logic?
Dissonance Reduction and Personal Values
•
•
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 detected
Some 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”)
The Cheating Pyramid
(Tavris)
“It’s not a
good thing”
“... but it’s not such
a bad thing”
“Oh please, it’s no big deal”
“It’s not so
unethical, I
need this
grade”
“Cheating is
really wrong;
everybody
loses”
“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
Rate task
$20
• 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)
Small fee to
write pro
legalization
More positive views of
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
Children rate the desirability of the toys a 2nd time after not playing with the desired
Which group rated the desirable toy most attractive?
Results of Forbidden Toy Study
- External Versus Internal Justification -
Large Reward or
Severe Punishment
External
Justification (I did it
for the money; I didn’t
do it because I’d be
punished a lot)
Small Reward or
Mild Punishment
Internal Justification
(I didn’t really lie, the
task was okay; I really
didn’t like the toy
anyway)
Temporary change
Lasting change
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
10
8
Participants cut off
driver than get cut off
by someone after
6
Cut off
driver
4
Don’t cut
off driver
2
0
Stability
Forgiveness
Negative
intention
~ 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
Justification of Cruelty: Dehumanizing the Victim
[e.g., use of derogatory names, trait descriptions, pictures,
postures, cartoons]
Extent of
negative
ratings
(change
from initial
ratings)
1
0
Greater need
to justify one’s
negative
evaluation
9
Listen to a tape of
another person and to
make a 1st impression
judgment. Then, read
a negative evaluation
that is heard by the
other person
8
Meet after
7
Not meet
6
5
Choice
No Choice
(Davis & Jones, 1960)
Guilt:
Closeness and Perceptions of Guilt of Torture Victim
[Dice roll – 8 gets most $, with an “0” for partner.
Confederate reports rolling an “8” – no way to verify]
‘‘How likely is it that
the ‘torture victim’
had cheated?”
‘How likely is it that
the ‘torture victim’ is
lying?”
‘‘How moral or
immoral do you
perceive the ‘torture
victim’ to be?”
Close: Met
confederate and
listed in next room
Distant: Not meet
confederate and
listened via radio
More dissonance
created
(Gray & Wegner, 2010)
More Cognitive Dissonance Occurs When:
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”)
SELF-PERCEPTION THEORY
DARYL
BEM
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
SELF-PERCEPTION STUDY
Attutude
survey (on
environmental
issues
WEAK
STRONG
Behavioral
survey (what
people actually
did about
environmental
issues
Attitude
survey (on
environmental
issues
Those with weak initial environmental
attitudes had their attitudes affected by
their responses to the behavior
questionnaire