Cognitive Dissonance Theory – Why So Influential?

Traditional Persuasion Techniques 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 Effects not very strong B) Short-term effects C) Limited to less important issues

THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (1957) * 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 Behavior inconsistent with the attitude Attitude (e.g., positive self-concept) Creation of dissonance Key role of Justification

~ Reducing Dissonance ~ Attitude: “I’m not going to smoke cigarettes anymore”) Behavior: Smoke cigarettes Some Options 1) Change behavior (e.g., Throw pack away) 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

Which would you prefer? 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 Also, study regarding confidence regarding betting on a horse: 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 * “It’s not so unethical, I need this grade” “Cheating is really wrong; everybody loses” “It’s not a good thing” “... but it’s not such a bad thing” “Oh please, it’s no big deal” “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 * Asked to tell participant that the task was interesting Perform boring task $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 Large fee to write pro legalization More positive views of legalization

Punishment & Self-Persuasion “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 Later, when given the chance, which group was less likely to play with the toy they previously liked?

Results of Forbidden Toy Study

- External Versus Internal Justification - External Justification (I did it for the money; I didn’t do it because I’d be punished a lot) Large Reward or Severe Punishment Temporary change Internal Justification (I didn’t really lie, the task was okay; I really didn’t like the toy anyway) Small Reward or Mild Punishment 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 6 4 2 Participants cut off driver than get cut off by someone after Cut off driver Don’t cut off driver Stability Negative intention Forgiveness

~ 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

More Cognitive Dissonance Occurs When: * 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 One’s self-concept is involved 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 Behavioral survey (what people actually did about environmental issues Attitude survey (on environmental issues WEAK STRONG Those with weak initial environmental attitudes had their attitudes affected by their responses to the behavior questionnaire