6th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University
Chapter 6
The Need to Justify Our Actions:
The Costs and Benefits of Dissonance
Reduction
“When the heart speaks, the mind
finds it indecent to object.”
-- Milan Kundera
When members of the Heaven’s Gate cult
couldn’t find a spaceship behind the comet,
they returned their telescope for a refund.
Their attitude was clear, and given their premise,
their logic was impeccable:
(1) We know an alien spaceship is following
behind the Hale-Bopp Comet, and
(2) If an expensive telescope failed to reveal that
spaceship, then
(3) There must be something wrong with the
telescope.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
•
•
•
Generally speaking, the members of the
Heaven’s Gate cult were not stupid or
irrational or crazy.
Neighbors considered them pleasant,
smart, reasonable people.
Their behavior was an extreme example of
a normal human tendency:
the need to justify our actions.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Maintaining a Stable,
Positive Self-Image
We humans strive to maintain a relatively favorable
view of ourselves, particularly when we encounter
evidence that contradicts our typically rosy selfimage.
Most of us want to believe that we are reasonable,
decent folks who make wise decisions, do not
behave immorally, and have integrity.
We want to believe that we do not do stupid, cruel, or
absurd things.
The Theory of Cognitive
Dissonance
• When we are confronted with information
implying that we may have behaved in ways
that are irrational, immoral, or stupid, we
experience a good deal of discomfort.
• This feeling of discomfort caused by
performing an action that runs counter to
one’s customary (typically positive)
conception of oneself is referred to as
cognitive dissonance.
The Theory of Cognitive
Dissonance
Leon Festinger (1957) was the first to
investigate the precise workings of this
powerful phenomenon and elaborated his
findings into what is arguably social
psychology’s most important and most
provocative theory, the theory of cognitive
dissonance.
Dissonance is most powerful and most
upsetting when people behave in ways
that threaten their self-image.
The Theory of Cognitive
Dissonance
There are three basic ways we try to reduce
cognitive dissonance:
• By changing our behavior to bring it in
line with the dissonant cognition.
• By attempting to justify our behavior
through changing one of the dissonant
cognitions.
• By attempting to justify our behavior by
adding new cognitions.
Self Affirmation
• These distortions are aimed at protecting one’s
self image as a sensible, competent, person.
• One additional way of reducing dissonance is
by trying to bolster the self concept in a
different domain.
• The smoker who failed to quit might remind
herself of the things she does do well:
“Yes, it is not very smart of me to be smoking,
but, you know, I’m really a very good
mathematician.”
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Why we overestimate
the pain of disappointment
• People often do not anticipate how
successfully they will reduce dissonance.
• For example, people overestimate how
dreadful they will feel following a romantic
break up or losing a job.
Impact Bias
The tendency to overestimate the intensity
and duration of our emotional reactions to
future negative events.
Why we overestimate
the pain of disappointment
• Given that people have successfully
reduced dissonance in the past, why is it
that they are not aware that they will do so
in the future?
• Because the process of
reducing dissonance is
largely unconscious.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Rational Behavior versus
Rationalizing Behavior
• Most people think of themselves as
rational beings, and generally, they are
right: We are certainly capable of rational
thought.
• But as we’ve seen, the need to maintain
our self-esteem leads to thinking that is
not always rational; rather, it is
rationalizing.
Rational Behavior versus
Rationalizing Behavior
In a study of people who were wired up to MRIs while they
were trying to process dissonant or consonant
information, Drew Westen and his colleagues (2006)
found that the reasoning areas of the brain virtually shut
down when a person is confronted with dissonant
information, and the emotion circuits of the brain light
up happily when consonance is restored.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
• Every time we make a decision, we experience
dissonance.
DISTORTING OUR LIKES AND DISLIKES
• In any decision (between two cars, two colleges, two
potential lovers), the chosen alternative is seldom entirely
positive, and the rejected alternative is seldom entirely
negative.
• So while making the decision, you have doubts.
• After the decision, your cognition that you are a smart
person is dissonant with aspects that didn’t fit your choice.
• You reduce dissonance by downplaying the negative
aspects of the one you chose and the positive aspects of
the one you rejected.
Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
• Every time we make a decision, we experience
dissonance.
DISTORTING OUR LIKES AND DISLIKES
• In any decision (between two cars, two colleges, two
potential lovers), Dissonance
the chosen alternative is seldom entirely
Postdecision
positive, and the rejected alternative is seldom entirely
Dissonance
aroused after making a
negative.
• Sodecision,
while making
the decision,
you have
typically
reduced
bydoubts.
enhancing
• After
the
decision, your cognition
that
you are a smart
the
attractiveness
of
the
chosen
person is dissonant with aspects that didn’t fit your choice.
alternative
and devaluating
the
• You
reduce dissonance
by downplaying
therejected
negative
aspects
of the one you chose and the positive aspects of
alternatives.
the one you rejected.
THE PERMANENCE OF THE DECISION
The more important the decision, the
greater the dissonance.
• Deciding whom to marry is more
important than which coffeemaker to buy.
Decisions also vary in how permanent they
are—how hard they are to revoke.
• You can more easily trade in your car
than get out of an unhappy marriage.
CREATING THE ILLUSION OF IRREVOCABILITY
• The irrevocability of a decision increases
dissonance and motivation to reduce it.
• Because of this, unscrupulous salespeople
develop techniques for creating the illusion that
irrevocability exists.
CREATING THE ILLUSION OF IRREVOCABILITY
• The irrevocability of a decision increases
dissonance and motivation to reduce it.
• Because of this, unscrupulous salespeople develop
techniques for creating the illusion that
irrevocability exists.
Lowballing
An unscrupulous strategy whereby a salesperson
induces a customer to agree to purchase a
product at a very low cost, subsequently claims
it was an error, and then raises the price.
Frequently, the customer will agree to make the
purchase at the inflated price.
CREATING THE ILLUSION OF IRREVOCABILITY
There are at least three reasons why lowballing works.
1. While the customer’s decision to buy is certainly
reversible, a commitment of sorts does exist. In the
world of high-pressure sales, even temporary illusion
can have powerful consequences.
2. The feeling of commitment triggered the anticipation of
an exciting event: driving out with a new car. To have
had the anticipated event thwarted (by not going ahead
with the deal) would have produced dissonance and
disappointment.
3. Although the final price is substantially higher than the
customer thought it would be, it is probably only slightly
higher than the price at another dealership. Under
these circumstances, the customer in effect says, “Oh,
what the heck. I’m here, I’ve already filled out the
forms, I’ve written out the check—why wait?”
THE DECISION TO BEHAVE IMMORALLY
• When is it okay to lie to a friend?
• When is an act stealing, and when is it
borrowing?
Moral dilemmas involve powerful
implications for one’s self-esteem.
Dissonance reduction following a difficult
moral decision can cause people to
behave either more or less ethically in the
future.
THE DECISION TO BEHAVE IMMORALLY
Suppose you decide to cheat on a test.
How do you reduce the dissonance?
• According to dissonance theory, it is likely that
you would try to justify the action by finding a
way to minimize the negative aspects of the
action you chose.
• You could adopt a more lenient attitude toward
cheating, convincing yourself that it is a
victimless crime that doesn’t hurt anybody, that
everybody does it, and so it’s not really that
bad.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
THE DECISION TO BEHAVE IMMORALLY
Suppose instead that after a difficult
struggle, you decide not to cheat.
How would you reduce your dissonance?
• You could change your attitude about the
morality of the act—but this time in the opposite
direction.
• To justify giving up a good grade, you convince
yourself that cheating is even worse than you
previously felt it was.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
THE DECISION TO BEHAVE IMMORALLY
• Judson Mills (1958) measured the attitudes of
sixth graders toward cheating.
• He then had them participate in a competitive
exam, with prizes awarded to the winners.
• The situation was arranged so that it was
almost impossible to win without cheating.
• Mills made it easy for the children to cheat and
created the illusion that they could not be
detected.
• The next day, children who had cheated
became more lenient toward cheating, and
those who had resisted the temptation to cheat
adopted a harsher attitude.
Justifying Your Effort
Most people are willing to work hard to get
something they really want.
• If you are really interested in pursuing a
particular career, you are likely to go the extra
mile to get it.
• You’ll probably study hard to meet graduate
school entrance requirements, study some
more for graduate school admissions exams,
and submit to a series of stressful interviews.
Justifying Your Effort
• Suppose, instead, you expend a great
deal of effort to get into a particular club
and it turns out to be a totally worthless
organization, consisting of boring,
pompous people engaged in trivial
activities.
• How would you reduce this dissonance?
• How would you justify your behavior?
Justifying Your Effort
Justification of Effort
The tendency for individuals to increase
their liking for something they have
worked hard to attain.
Even the most boring people and trivial clubs have some
redeeming qualities.
Activities and behaviors are open to a variety of
interpretations.
If we are motivated to see the best in people and things, we
will tend to interpret these ambiguities in a positive way.
Aronson and Mills (1959) explored the link
between effort and dissonance reduction. In
their experiment, college students
volunteered to join a group that would be
meeting regularly to discuss various aspects
of the psychology of sex.
To be admitted to the group, they volunteered to
go through a screening procedure.
1.
2.
3.
For one-third of the participants, a screening
procedure was extremely demanding and unpleasant.
For one-third, it was only mildly unpleasant.
The other third were admitted to the group without
any screening at all.
• Participants who underwent little or no effort to
get into the group regretted that they had
agreed to participate.
• Participants who went through a severe
initiation, however, convinced themselves that
the same discussion was a worthwhile
experience.
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
• If you tell a friend that you like her ugly dress
very much, do you experience much
dissonance? We doubt it.
• There are a great many thoughts that are
consonant with having told this lie.
• In effect, your cognition that it is important not
to cause pain to people you like provides ample
external justification for having told a harmless
lie.
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
• If you tell a friend that you like her ugly dress
very much, do you experience much
dissonance? We doubt it.
• There are many thoughts that are consonant
with having told this lie.
•External
In effect,
your cognition that it is important not
Justification
cause
pain
to people
like provides
A to
reason
or an
explanation
foryou
dissonant
personal ample
behavior that
resides outside
the individual.
external
justification
for having
told a harmless
(e.g.,
lie. in order to receive a large reward or avoid a severe
punishment)
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
• What if you say something you don’t
believe, but there is no good external
justification for your insincerity?
Internal Justification
The reduction of dissonance by changing
something about oneself.
(e.g., one’s attitude or behavior)
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
• What if you say something you don’t
believe, but there is no good external
justification for your insincerity?
Internal Justification
Counterattitudinal Advocacy
The reduction of dissonance by changing
Stating
an about
opinion
or attitude that runs
something
oneself.
counter
to one’s
belief or attitude.
(e.g.,
one’s attitude
or private
behavior)
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959)
induced college student volunteers to spend an
hour performing boring and repetitive tasks.
Half of them were offered $20 (large external
justification) to tell the next volunteer it was very
interesting while the others were offered only
$1 (small external justification) for lying.
The Psychology of
Insufficient Justification
Leon Festinger
and the
J. Merrill
Carlsmith
(1959)
• Afterward,
students
who had
been
induced
college
student
volunteers
spend
paid
$20 for
lying—for
sayingtothat
the an
tasks had boring
been enjoyable—rated
the
hour performing
and repetitive tasks.
activities
the dull
boring
Half of them
were as
offered
$20and
(large
external
experiences they were.
justification) to tell the next volunteer it was very
• But those
whoothers
were paid
$1 for
interesting
while the
wereonly
offered
only
saying the task was enjoyable rated the
$1 (small
justification)
lying.
taskexternal
as significantly
moreforenjoyable.
• With insufficient external justification, they
developed internal justification and came
to believe their lie.
Counterattitudinal Advocacy,
Race Relations, and Preventing AIDS
• When someone publicly advocates something
that is counter to what they believe or how they
actually behave, it arouses dissonance.
• In the case of an AIDS prevention experiment,
participants videotaped speeches about the
importance of using condoms and they were
made aware of their own failure to use them.
• In order to reduce dissonance, they changed
their behavior: They purchased condoms.
• Counterattitudinal advocacy is one way to use
the human tendency to reduce dissonance to
foster socially beneficial behaviors.
Counterattitudinal Advocacy,
Race Relations, and Preventing AIDS
• During the 1990s, Elliot Aronson and his
students asked two groups of college students to
compose a speech describing the dangers of
AIDS and advocating the use of condoms every
time a person has sex.
• Participants who made a video for high school
students after the experimenter got them to think
about their own failure to use condoms
experienced high dissonance.
• They were made aware of their own hypocrisy:
They had to deal with the fact that that they were
preaching behavior that they themselves were
not practicing.
Students in the hypocrisy condition were
subsequently more likely to buy condoms
than students in any of the other
conditions.
THE POWER OF MILD PUNISHMENT
• Does harsh punishment teach adults to
want to obey the speed limit?
• Does it teach youngsters to value honest
behavior?
• Apparently all it teaches
us is to try to avoid
getting caught.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
THE POWER OF MILD PUNISHMENT
Insufficient Punishment
The dissonance aroused when individuals
lack sufficient external justification for
having resisted a desired activity or
object, usually resulting in individuals’
devaluing the forbidden activity or object.
The less severe you make the threat of punishment, the
less external justification there is; the less external
justification, the greater the need for internal justification.
THE POWER OF MILD PUNISHMENT
Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) asked each child to
rate the attractiveness of several toys.
An experimenter then pointed to a toy that the
child considered among the most attractive and
told the child that he or she was not allowed to
play with it.
Half the children were threatened with mild
punishment if they disobeyed; the other half
were threatened with severe punishment.
When the experimenter left the room for a few
minutes, none of the children played with the
forbidden toy.
THE POWER OF MILD PUNISHMENT
Aronson and Carlsmith (1963): When the
experimenter returned, the children who had
received a severe threat continued to rate the
forbidden toy as highly desirable or more
desirable than they had before the threat.
The children in the mild threat condition needed
internal justification to reduce their dissonance.
They convinced themselves the reason they
hadn’t played with the toy was that they didn’t
really like it.
They rated the forbidden toy as less attractive
than they had when the experiment began.
THE POWER OF MILD PUNISHMENT
Self-Persuasion
A long-lasting form of attitude change that
results from attempts at self-justification.
REWARDS OR PUNISHMENTS
If you want someone to do something or not do
something only once, the most effective
strategy would be to promise a large reward or
threaten severe punishment.
But if you want someone to become committed to
an attitude or behavior, the smaller the reward
or punishment that will lead to momentary
compliance, the greater the eventual change
will be and therefore the more permanent.
Large rewards and severe punishments, as
strong external justifications, encourage
compliance but prevent real attitude change.
THE BEN FRANKLIN EFFECT
Dissonance theory
predicts we will like
them more after doing
them a favor.
Ben Franklin reported
using this. After he
borrowed a book from a
political opponent, the
other politician became
more civil toward him.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
Hating Your Victim
• Davis and Jones (1960) had participants tell a
young man (the researchers' confederate) they
thought he was shallow, untrustworthy, boring.
• After the fact, the participants convinced
themselves they didn't like the victim of their
cruelty.
• After saying things they knew were certain to
hurt him, they convinced themselves that he
deserved to be hurt.
Self-Discrepancy Theory
The idea that people become distressed when their
sense of their actual self differs from their ideal self.
Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory
The idea that one’s self-concept can be threatened by
another individual’s behavior and that the level of
threat is determined by both the closeness of the
other individual and the personal relevance of the
behavior.
Self-Affirmation Theory
The idea that people will reduce the impact of a
dissonance-arousing threat to their self-concept
by focusing on and affirming their competence
on some dimension unrelated to the threat.
Culture and Dissonance
We can find the effects of dissonance in almost
every part of the world, but it does not always
take the same form.
Example:
• In Japan, if a person merely observes someone
he knows and likes saying that a boring task is
interesting and enjoyable, that will cause the
observer to experience dissonance.
• Consequently, in that situation, the observers’
attitudes change. In short, the observers bring
their evaluation more in line with the lie their
friend has told!
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON DISSONANCE:
LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES
• President George W. Bush wanted to believe
that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction (WMD) which
posed a threat to Americans.
• Bush and his advisors’ interpretation of CIA
reports provided the justification to launch a
preemptive war.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON DISSONANCE:
LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES
• As the months dragged on and still no WMD
were found they continued to assert that they
would find them.
• Why? Because they were experiencing
enormous dissonance. They had to believe
they would find them.
• Finally, it was officially
concluded that there were
no WMD.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON DISSONANCE:
LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES
• How did President Bush and his staff reduce
dissonance?
• By adding new cognitions to justify the war:
Suddenly the U.S. mission was to liberate the
nation from a cruel dictator and give the Iraqi
people the blessings of democratic institutions.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
SOME FINAL THOUGHTS ON DISSONANCE:
LEARNING FROM OUR MISTAKES
• Several commentators have suggested that
the Bush administration was deliberately trying
to deceive the American people.
• 50 years of cognitive
dissonance research tells us
is that the President and his
advisers may not have been
intentionally deceiving the
American people, but it is
likely that they were deceiving
themselves.
Source of image: Microsoft Office Online.
6th edition
Social Psychology
Elliot Aronson
University of California, Santa Cruz
Timothy D. Wilson
University of Virginia
Robin M. Akert
Wellesley College
slides by Travis Langley
Henderson State University