- Cognitive Dissonance Theory –
Leon Festinger
Key role of Self-Justification
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
[Similar to the need to reduce hunger and thirst]
Cognition
about self
(e.g., honest
person)
Hold cognition/belief
(e.g., “Guilty”)
Behavior inconsistent
with the cognition
Inconsistent with existing
empirical evidence (e.g.,
DNA)
Creation of
dissonance
Creation of
dissonance
Creation of
dissonance
Hold 2 contrary
cognitions ("I like to smoke cigarettes" "I know cigarette smoking causes cancer")
~ Reducing Dissonance ~
Cognition: “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” “I may live a shorter life but I’ll enjoy myself more”)
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
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
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
Post-Decision Dissonance
Choice A
Choice B
Choice C
You choose
"A"
• Choice "A" has some negative aspects that is dissonant with the thought that you're a
smart person
• Choices "B" and "C" have positive aspects that is dissonant with the thought that
you're a smart person
We will likely 1) emphasize the positive aspects of the choice we made (and reduce
negatives) while 2) minimizing the positive aspects of those we rejected (and focusing on
negatives)
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
Liked their final
decision less
Predictions were wrong too! Students predicted that they’d be happier if they could
keep their options open regarding the photographs (Gilbert & Ebert, 2002)
Betting Study and Certainty of Winning
(Knox & Inkster, 1968)
Asked bettors about
chances of winning
BEFORE placing their bet
Avg. = 3.4
Asked bettors about
chances of winning
AFTER placing their bet
Avg. = 4.8
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 *
“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 worked hard to
attain]
STUDY: Female college students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting
regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. Need to know if they
had any hesitation to entering a discussion about sex. No one said they did.
Different levels of
initiation used:
1) Severe (had to
recite 12 obscene
sexual words & 2
"steamy" passages
from Lady
Chatterley's Lover)
2) Mild (recite sexual
not obscene words)
3) No Initiation
(Now member of
the group)
Listened to
tape of
conversation
on "sexual
behavior" by
group she
thought she
had joined
(slow, boring
content)
Applied Examples:
Military,
Fraterities/Sororities
FESTINGER & CARLSMITH (1$ - $20 Study)
Counterattitudinal Advocacy *
Perform boring task
(e.g., fill a tray with
12 spoons with 1 hand
one at a time; take
them out one by one,
put them back in over
and over for ½ hour
Asked to tell participant that the
task was interesting
$1
$20
Rate task
• Which group rated the task as more interesting after lying, those paid $1 or $20?
$20.00
Boring
$1.00
Interesting
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
“FORBIDDEN TOY” STUDY *
(Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963)
Punishment & Self-Persuasion
Told they were NOT allowed to play with the 2nd most desirable toy (separated it from rest of toys).
MILD THREAT
(“I would be a little angry”
SEVERE THREAT
(“I would be very angry. I would have to take
all the toys and go home and ever come back
again. I would think you were just a baby.”
Children did not play with the forbidden toy
Which group ranked the forbidden as less attractive?
Mild Threat
Not
attractive
Severe Threat
Attractive
Long-Lasting Results of Forbidden Toy Approach
[2 months later]
(Freedman, 1965)
- 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 and tape
a video for high
school students
on dangers of
AIDS
Applied Example: Reducing road rage – awareness of one’s own mistake while driving
(e.g., cutting someone off )
Hypocrisy Paradigm & Road Rage*
Participant cuts off another
driver in a driving simulator.
Next, someone else cuts off
the participant
10
8
6
Cut off
driver
4
Don’t cut
off driver
2
0
Stability
Forgiveness
Negative
intention
(Takaku, 2006)
Hypocrisy Paradigm & Water
Conservation
Sign petition
to conserve
water by
taking shorter
showers
Estimate
how long
their recent
showers had
been
No estimate
Significantly less
time showering
(3 ½ minutes)
than those not
asked to estimate
recent shower
length
~ 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
return $$ won
to help
experimenter
continue
research
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”)
DARYL
BEM
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
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