Social Psychology
Lecture 10
Attitude Change
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Jane Clarbour
Room PS/B007 email: jc129
Objectives
• Define ‘cognitive dissonance’
• Report an experiment on how cognitive dissonance
can occur in decision making
• Explain the ‘forced compliance’ paradigm
• Account for the role of arousal in cognitive
dissonance theory
• State revisions to cognitive dissonance theory
• Demonstrate an understanding of how cognitive
dissonance can be reduced.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Festinger (1957)
– Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is
inconsistency between 2 cognitions
• Cognitions: knowledge, opinions, beliefs
(relating to self, behaviour, or environment)
• Dissonance: A state of psychological tension
which motivates people to do something to get
rid of it to resume cognitive consistency
Example of cognitive dissonance
• Smoker
– Knowledge that wants a cigarette
– Knowledge that smoking causes cancer
Desire
Knowledge
Wants to stop smoking
Smoking is bad for health
Creates state of
tension
Motivated to get rid of discomfort!
Festinger’s main ways to
reduce dissonance:
• Change behaviour
• Change cognitions (focus of most research)
• Add new information
Cognitive dissonance in
decision making
•
Dissonance occurs due to continued
attraction towards rejected alternative
– Reduction of dissonance by:
1. Viewing chosen alternative A more positively
2. Viewing rejected alternative B more negatively
3. Attitude changed as a result of making the decision
Decision making study
• Ss in the experimental choice condition rated their
chosen article (A) as more attractive than in their first
rating.
• Rejected article (B) rates as less attractive
Choice
No choice
Time 1
A6/B6
A6
Time 2
A7/B5
A6
No change in control
Decision making experiment:
Early conclusions (Brehm, 1956)
• Supports the predictions of cognitive
dissonance theory
– Attitude change is a consequence of
having to make the decision
Forced compliance paradigm
• Forced compliance may involve
either/both of two elements:
1. counter-motivational
•
Performing behaviours don’t want to
2. counter-attitudinal
•
Stating like things when don’t really like them
Justification for attitude change
• Cognitive dissonance theory
– small rewards are most likely to affect
attitude change by making the attitude to
the product more favourable.
– The smaller the reward, the greater the
dissonance
Boring tasks experiments
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
• Forced compliance paradigm
– Wooden peg task
– Spools of thread task
•
Ss have to tell next Ss that task was really
interesting (3 conditions)
C1: paid $1
C2: paid $20
C3: Control (not paid at all)
Results
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
Level of interest in task
Wooden pegs
Threads
$1
$20
control
The role of arousal in CDT
(Cooper et al, 1978)
• Arousal is hypothesised to motivate
attitude change
– Ss were asked to write an essay justifying the
pardon of ex-president Nixon
– Experimental Ss given pills and placed into
various conditions to manipulate arousal
• Tranquillizer (‘downer’)
• Amphetamine (‘upper’)
• Placebo (milk power)
Design of arousal and forced
compliance experiment
• 2 x 3 factorial design
– Choice: 2 levels
• (High choice/low choice)
– High choice: up to Ss if want to take part
– Low choice: just given paper to write on
– Arousal: 3 levels
• Phenobarbital (tranquilliser condition)
• Amphetamine (arousal condition)
• Milk power (placebo condition)
Results
• Placebo
– Sig. more attitude change in the direction of the
essay for high choice than low choice
• Tranquilliser condition
– No difference when compared to control group
• Amphetamine
– Attitude change increased in both high and low
choice conditions
• Shows arousal influences attitude change over and
above cognitive appraisal (effect of choice)
Findings so far…
• Cognitive dissonance caused by inconsistency in
beliefs
• Attitude change as consequence of dissonance
resolution
• Attitude change must be own choice
– (preference for goods decision making experiment: Brehm,
1956) .
• The smaller the reward, the greater the dissonance
– (interest in boring task experiment: Festinger & Carlsmith,
1959)
• Arousal is necessary for attitude change (Cooper et al,
1978)
http://chiron.valdosta.edu/mawhatley/
767/cogdiss.htm
Alternative interpretations of findings in
forced compliance studies…
• $20 fee too large (bribe)
• Preservation of self-concept (not inconsistency
of beliefs)
(Aronson, 1968)
• Attitude change reaffirms values (Steele & Liu, 1981)
– But only necessary if feel responsible for choice/behaviour
Commitment and volition
(Brehm & Cohen, 1962)
• Inconsistency between beliefs is insufficient
to create cognitive dissonance
– The subject must feel able to choose whether to perform the
counter-attitudinal behaviour
• Commitment and volition are necessary for
cognitive dissonance
– Feeling of responsibility
– Control
– Choice
Revisions to cognitive
dissonance theory
• New Look theory (Cooper & Fazio, 1984)
– Dissonance more to do with unwanted
consequence, than inconsistent belief
– Suggests greater emphasis on personal
responsibility
– Supports claims that arousal is
motivational in attitude change in forced
compliance tasks
Revisions to cognitive
dissonance theory
• Radical dissonance theory (Beauvois & Joules,
1996)
– greater focus on personal commitment
– Stresses the importance of rationalisation
of counter-attitudinal behaviour
• Cognitive rationalisation
• Act rationalisation
In conclusion
•
Research suggests dissonance may
be reduced two main ways:
1. Cognitive
–
–
Getting rid of incongruence in beliefs
Attribute responsibility to external source
2. Behavioural
–
–
Change behaviour
Rationalization of changed behaviour
–
–
Cognitive rationalization
Act rationalization
Objective 1
• Define ‘cognitive dissonance’
– Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance
theory definition :
• A state of psychological tension arising from
inconsistency between two cognitions which
motivates (drives) attitude change
– Radical dissonance theory’s definition:
• A process of cognitive or behavioural
rationalization to reduce tension created by
counter-attitudinal behaviour
Objective 2
• Report an experiment on how
cognitive dissonance can occur in
decision making
– Consumer research study showed that Ss
reduced their ratings of objects they had
previously highly rated when told they
could only keep one of them (Brehm, 1956)
Objective 3
• Define ‘forced compliance’
– When people act in a way which is
problematic to them because it goes
against their own beliefs
• Note: Beauvois & Joule (1996) suggest
that this paradigm works because it
involves obedience to an authority
figure
Objective 4
• Account for the role of arousal in
cognitive dissonance theory
– Arousal is thought to motivate attitude
change
• Experimental examples include Cooper et al,
(1978) – Tutorial 3
• Interpretation that necessary for change
(Cooper & Fazio, 1984)
• Discussion of lower rates of attitudinal change
with external attribution for compliance
Objective 5
• State revisions to cognitive dissonance
theory
– Radical dissonance theory (Beavois & Jules,
1996):
• Emphasis on commitment
• Stresses the importance of rationalisation of counterattitudinal behaviour
– ‘New look’ approach (Cooper & Fazio, 1984)
• Emphasis on personal responsibility
Objective 6
• Demonstrate an understanding of how
cognitive dissonance can be reduced.
– Attribute responsibility to external source
– Reduce the importance of dissonant cognitions
– Add new cognitions that are similar to dissonant
cognitions…
Key reading
• Beauvois & Joules (1996) Radical
dissonance theory
• Cooper & Fazio (1984) New look
approach
• Franzoi (2000) pp. 170 - 181