Social Psychology Lecture 10 Attitude Change Cognitive Dissonance Theory Jane Clarbour Room PS/B007 email: jc129 Introduction This is the last lecture both in the module and in the series of lectures relating to ‘attitudes’. In this lecture we will be continuing to look at attitude change… In the last lecture we looked at the role of fear appeals in relation to attitude change and discussed models which suggested that for fear appeals to work they must be perceived as CREDIBLE and SERIOUS. The theory which has been potentially most influential in this respect is Protection Motivation Theory (Rogers), and motivation continues to be a central topic in today’s lecture. •The purpose of this lecture is to review cognitive dissonance as a theory of attitude change (Festinger,1957) • –Cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) –Radical dissonance theory –some experiments –Theoretical critique

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. What does cognitive dissonance mean? When does it occur? What is meant by forced compliance Demonstrate an understanding of the different WAYS that people attempt to reduce cognitive inconsistency

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 Cognitive Dissonance Theory  Posits that when two cognitive elements are dissonant with each other, the individual will attempt to establish consonance between the thoughts Dissonance can be reduced by eliminating, adding, or changing cognitive elements  Dissonance refers to the physiological arousal Because it’s a drive, its motivational. Similar to drive states of hunger or thirst We spoke last week about drive theory in relation attitude change – this is rather similar but considers now the arousal as coming from the unpleasant state of holding two beliefs that are at odds with each other – rather than as a result of fear or cognitions about perceived threat. FESTINGER’S CDT suggests people are motivated to reduce the state of dissonance in order to reduce unpleasant cognitive state

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 I want a cigaratte (I KNOW I want a cigarette) – I KNOW its bad for me (I don’t want to start smoking again) I don’t smoke (I gave up smoking – I don’t smoke anymore) example: "severe initiation leads to liking." (ibid., at p. 43) Research has shown that people exhibit greater liking of an organization that subjects them to severe initiation than to one that subjects them only to a mild initiation. This result can be explained by cognitive dissonance theory. There is conflict between the negative affect that the person experiences in response to the initiation, since the person has chosen to go through the initiation to gain entrance to the organization. This conflict produces discomfort and tension. The person can resolve this tension by justifying the initiation as "worth it" because of the positive things he or she will gain from the benefits of membership. The more effort put into the justification process, the more attachment the person has to the organization. The more difficult the initiation, the greater the need for justification. Thus the stronger the commitment to the organization. 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 Change behaviour (e.g. stop smoking) Reduces unpleasant state Change cognitions (focus of most research) (e.g. rationalise the research) “only smokers with a certain type of personality get cancer – not me” “Ted and Mary lived to 95 without dying of cancer” “better to die happy at 60 than peevish/miserable at 80” Add new information (e.g. look for new research which disproves the cancer-smoking relationship

Cognitive dissonance in decision making Dissonance occurs due to continued attraction towards rejected alternative Reduction of dissonance by: Viewing chosen alternative A more positively Viewing rejected alternative B more negatively Attitude changed as a result of making the decision When you have a choice between 2 equally attractive alternatives… So, people are motivated to change cognitions to reduce dissonance THIS WAS TESTED EXPERIMENTALLY by BREHM (1956) …

Decision making study No change in control Time 1 Time 2 Choice A6/B6 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 No change in control Time 1 Time 2 Choice A6/B6 A7/B5 No choice A6 Study 1: Experimental example of cognitive dissonance in decision making (Brehm, 1956) An early American study carried out in the mid 1950’s… Brehm invited female students to take part in project on consumer research. Shown 8 articles to rate for desirability (e.g. lamp, toaster, coffee-maker..) Told could keep one of two articles for taking part (rigged so that always choose between 2 rated most highly) Control condition (no choice) Then, Ss given 1 article rated highly Rate all the 8 articles again. Ss in the experimental choice condition rated their chosen article as more attractive than in their first rating. Rated the rejected article less favourably

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 But dissonance is not limited to decision making…

Forced compliance paradigm Forced compliance may involve either/both of two elements: counter-motivational Performing behaviours don’t want to counter-attitudinal Stating like things when don’t really like them Other studies of cognitive dissonance used the Forced Compliance Paradigm Forced compliance tasks entail Ss performing a behaviour that is: Performing behaviours don’t want to Stating like things when don’t really like them Assumption that attitude change results from discrepancy between stated preference and actual preference to reduce dissonance

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 e.g. An actor when advertising product she doesn’t like: if paid lots feel ok because paid if not paid likely to feel dissonance Shift in attitude towards behaviour results in less discrepancy between the actor’s attitude and behaviour The forced compliance paradigm was tested experimentally by FESTINGER in the late 1950’s

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) Early forced compliance studies Given a wooden board with 48 pegs in square holes – sets tasks: Turn each peg, quarter turn to Left, quarter turn to right, back to left, back to right etc (30 mins.) Given a board with 12 spools of thread: Take each spool off, put it back, take it off, put back etc for 30 mins Control group: Experimenter just asked what Ss thought of the task (e.g. didn’t have to tell next Ss)

Results Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) No difference between the control and $20 groups $1 group rated the task as significantly more interesting Conclusion Supports prediction of CDT for forced compliance as the person paid least rated the task as most interesting! But didn’t measure physiological arousal…

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) 2nd Forced Compliance study included manipulation of arousal Experimental study based on the Watergate scandal which led to the resignation of President Nixon (now very unpopular!) In 1972 (during the American Presidential Election), a group of Republicans broke into the Watergate Hotel (being used as Democratic party’s campaign HQ) Nixon REPUPLICAN sanctioned the cover-up of the crime Nixon forced to resign in 1974 One month later, given full pardon by Gerald Ford (his successor). Ss selected on basis of anti-Nixon attitudes Experimental group = Ss with anti-Nixon attitude After writing essay, Ss asked the extent agreed/disagreed with the pardoning of Nixon

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) SHOW OHP of design to show what looks like (KEEP UP FOR NEXT SLIDE) All exp.Ss told being placed in the placebo condition

Results Placebo Tranquilliser condition Amphetamine 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) Cooper et al showed that arousal plays an important role in cognitive dissonance Interpretted that arousal is a necessary condition Placebo – AS WOULD EXPECT - wouldn’t expect attitude change if low choice – but would for high choice as they would be motivated to reduce dissonance No arousal (tranquilliser condition) = no attitude change Amphetamine has aroused Ss physiologically – this resulted in attitude change for both high and low choice groups even though low choice group wouldn’t normally change Chemically heightened arousal gave Ss in Amphetamine cond cause to reduce arousal through attitude change. Critique: But they didn’t actually measure physiological levels of arousal should have done baseline physiological measures before and after administration of drug (only attitude change following induced arousal)

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)

A number of factors have been shown to affect cognitive dissonance.                                                                                    A number of factors have been shown to affect cognitive dissonance. 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 Rather than inconsistency of belief resulting in attitude change it may have been feared loss of self-esteem, cognitive change may result instead from preservation of the self-concept

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 Dissonance more to do with unwanted consequence, than inconsistent belief Have to feel that the result is irreversible – no opportunity to explain only an experiment! Suggests greater emphasis on personal responsibility If Ss can attribute doing the task because the experimenter told them to – no dissonance. Eg. If driving on road and danger sign 55 mph, but carries on driving 55 mph more likely to experience dissonance if slides off the road, as feels bad about knowing impending danger but didn’t slow down than driver in similar position but no sign, who’s more likely to blame conditions than self. If the driver feels more RESPONSIBLE then more dissonance is created (as KNEW was dangerous – but didn’t take more care)

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 this instance, RADICAL refers to going back to origins/roots rather than big change In their book, many experiments are discussed in great depth, but the important part to understand is that they suggest that agreeing to take part in counter-attitudinal behaviour creates dissonance, and that by taking part in even more (higher cost) of the same counter-attitudinal behaviour, the Ss will rationalise this by subsequently rating the first behaviour more difficult (because this makes the 2nd seem easier). Cognitive rationalisation = post hoc attitude change Act rationalisation = production of 2nd behaviour to reinforce earlier behaviour Emphasis now moving towards resolution of contradictory beliefs rather than cognitive consistency

In conclusion Research suggests dissonance may be reduced two main ways: Cognitive Getting rid of incongruence in beliefs Attribute responsibility to external source Behavioural Change behaviour Rationalization of changed behaviour Cognitive rationalization Act rationalization (list how and give examples): 1. Reducing favourability of particular items: ie making statements such as “I didn’t like it anyway” Avoid responsibility for the behaviour (ie Cooper & Fazio, 1984) Rationalising changed behaviour: COGNITIVE Rationalisation = POST HOC changing attitude to provide sufficient value to the behaviour to be able to justify doing it Attitude changed as a result of changed behaviour ACT Rationalisation = Production of a NEW BEHAVIOUR

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) This shows how cognitive dissonance (still being attracted to the first object, when given the 2nd) is reduced by cognitive rationisation to bring beliefs in line with decision.

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 counter-attitudinal behaviour ‘New look’ approach (Cooper & Fazio, 1984) Emphasis on personal responsibility Radical dissonance theory Cognitive rationalisation = post hoc attitude change Act rationalisation = production of 2nd behaviour to reinforce earlier behaviour

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