Attitude change: cognitive dissonance Flashcards
Lesson 3
Why research attitude change?
Attitudes are not fixed - interested in how, why, and what influences attitude change.
If attitude influences behaviour, then if you can change a person’s attitude, you might change their behaviour.
Outline Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT)
Originated by Festinger (1957).
Argues that when we are aware that our cognitions are inconsisent/imbalanced we feel an unpleasant state of psychological tension (called dissonance).
Such inconsistent cognitions lead us to perform “psychological work” to reduce dissonance.
Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones (2007) point out, this usually involves support for the cognition that is most resistant to change (‘the focal cognition’)
The focal cognition is often recent behaviour, with other cognitions (which are easier to change) being attitudes, feelings, beliefs, and other behaviours.
To reduce dissoance you either:
- Subtract from dissonant cognition(s) [cognitions that don’t match focal cognition]
- Decrease the importance of dissonant cognition(s).
- Add to consonant cognition(s) [cognitions that match with focal cognition].
- Increase the importance of consonant cognitions.
How has CDT been investigated?
Using the three experimental “paradigms”: free-choice paradigm, forced compliance paradigm, effort justification paradigm.
What is the free-choice paradigm?
Imagine a choice between two purchase alternatives.
Once you’ve bought one or the other, think about how you feel about the one you’ve bought and the one you didn’t buy.
CDT says that after you’ve made your choice, you’ll:
- Big up the advantages and play down the disadvantages of the chosen item.
- Big up the disadvantages and play down the advantages of the rejected item.
Research by Brehm (1956):
- Participants rated desirability of 8 products.
- Allowed to choose one of two items to keep.
- Rated items again.
- Found that whichever item was chosen was now seen as much better whereas the item not chosen, was now seen as much worse.
CDT explanation for free-choice paradigm
Avoiding ‘buyers remorse’ also known as “spreading of alternative”.
Reduce adverse feelings by:
- Searching for and emphasising positive characteristics, and evaluating more positively the chosen item.
- Searching for and emphaisising negative characterisitcs and evaluating the rejected item more negatively.
Outline the forced compliance paradigm
What if you are forced into a behaviour that goes against your attitudes?
CDT suggests a change in attitude.
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959):
- Participants performed a series of dull tasks.
- Were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting ‘participant’ (was actually a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting.
- Then were asked to evalaute the dull task: how interesting and enjoyable was it?
There were three conditions:
- Lie that the task was interesting/enjoyable and get $1.
- Lie that the task was interesting/enjoyable and get $20.
- Control group: not asked to lie about the task.
Found that the control group and $20 group did not find the task enjoyable, however participants that were paid $1 did find the task enjoyable.
Forced compliance: CDT explanation
- Those who were paid $20 found that this sufficient justification for lying and so had low dissonance and so there was no attitude change.
- Those who were paid $1 found the justification for lying insufficient and so had high dissonance which led to a change in attitude towards the task.
Counter-attitudinal advocacy - a study using forced compliance paradigm
Design tests whether you can be pro something which goes against your attitude towards it.
Common version of this design:
- Take an attitude that participants hold.
- Get them to advocate for the reverse of it.
- See what happens.
- Usually - attitude changes away from the original attitude.
Therapy applications:
The counter-attitudinal advocacy design offers a great opportunity to therapy.
Getting pople with unhealthy attitudes to advocate against those attitudes.
Can lead to:
- Movement away from those unhealthy attitudes.
- And reduction in the unhealthy behaviour associated with them.
What is the effort-justification paradigm?
Put in loads of effort -> reach a goal -> find goal not worth the effort -> need to justify the effort (this is the cognitive dissonance) -> big-up the goal.
Evaluation of CDT: development of CDT
Important developments have introduced the concept of the self to cognitive dissonance:
- Self-Consistency theory (Aronson, 1968, 1999) agrees with cognitive dissonance however suggests its missing the key aspect that dissonance revoles around the self - not just dissonance for attitudes, but beliefs/attitudes in line with who you think you are.
- Self-Afirmation theory (Steele, 1988): not about consistency but rather about the person feeling good about themselves (high self-esteem and high self-worth).
Evaluation: Self-Perception Theory (SPT)
Challenges the mechanisms of CDT.
Berm (1967):
- No first-hand self-knowledge.
- Observe self just like observe others.
- Conclude after the fact, e.g. self-observed consistencies = ‘personality’.
Forced compliance: SPT explanation
Attitude change arises from interpreting one’s own behaviour in a rational, observational way (without discomfort).
In the monetary task: “If I lied about the enjoyability of the task for such a small amount, I must actually like the produce”.
Evaluation: What is the radical theory of cognitive dissonance?
Joule and Beauvois (1998) argued:
- Against revising cognitive dissonance to focus on the self.
- Take us back to the basic, original CDT.
- Say that you don’t need anything more as long as you acknowledge the importance of the ‘focal cognition’.
Evaluation: dissonance and culture
Dissonance seems to not be a purely Western process - universal .
However, what causes dissonance can vary depending on cultural norms and values.
Individualistic cultures - dissonance arises when actions conflict with personal beliefs.
Collectivistic cultures - dissonance arises when actions conflict with social expectations or group harmony.
Evaluation: community orientation
Sakai (1999) found vicarious dissonance reduction:
- People’s attitudes changed when their friend engaged in dissonance reduction.
- Suggested this is because you feel discomfort as you empathise with your friend and find yourself unconsciously aligning your attitudes to theirs to resolve the discomfort.
Vicarious dissonance reduction is when an individual changes their attitudes/beliefs, not because of their own actions, but because they observe someone else (particularly someone they identify with) engage in behaviours that suggest they are reducing their own cognitive dissoance.
Hoshino-Brown et al. (2005) found a cross-cultural difference:
- both easterners and westerners can experience dissonance, but culture shapes the situations in which dissoance is aroused and reduced.
Evaluation: intergenerational conflict
Choi et al. (2008) looked at intergenerational conflict in American immigrant families from Vietnam and Cambodia.
Cultural views clash between:
- Parents - who’s values are from their birth countries.
- Their young children - with American values.
Dissonance in the 1st generation Americans:
“Love their parents, but… do not agree with many of their parents’ values”.
Researchers found high cognitive dissonance = more trouble, poorer school performance and more family discord.
