Cognitive Dissonance Flashcards
Cognitive Dissonance, general
An unpleasant state of tension that results from an inconsistency between cognitive elements
o The individual motivated to reduce cognitive dissonance by resolving the inconsistency
Rationalizing/trivializing the importance of these cognitions
Distort thinking to resolve stress
Changing behavior regarding one of the dissonant elements
Can be used to explain ironic situations – results that counter what we would expect
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
Made participants engage in boring tasks
Then asked to tell next participant (who was a confederate) that the tasks were enjoyable
Were either paid $1 or $20 for doing son
• Those who were paid $1 later reported the tasks as being more fun
• There was inconsistency between little payment (usually attributed to something that is more enjoyable) and actual feelings
Participants altered their opinions of the task to remove dissonance
Zimbardo et al., 1965
Told military personnel they would have to eat grasshoppers while deployed
Some told by a positive communicator, others by a negative communicator
Some then ate the bugs, others did not
Those who were informed by the negative communicator and then ate the bugs reported more favorable attitude toward eating
Needed a way to rationalize the negative interaction and negative subsequent behavior
Non-eaters with positive communicator reported worst attitude toward eating, perhaps to justify their not helping
Spreading the Alternatives
(polarizing options)
Evaluation of chosen option goes up
Evaluation of unchosen option goes down
*dissonance creates the need to justify our choice
Vicarious dissonance
Member of ingroup, someone we respect experiences dissonance, we vicariously experience dissonance and change attitudes similarly
Kids, Monkeys, M&M’s
Children and monkeys experience dissonance as well
Monkeys were provided a selection of two different-colored M&Ms
When later presented a similar selection, using the previously rejected M&M, and a new colored M&M, monkeys show a decreased interest in the previously rejected M&M
o Children respond in a similar manner
Variables that influence cognitive dissonance
Free choice
Personal responsibility
Involvement of self-values/integrity
Aversive consequences [not necessary for dissonance, but does create it]
Axsom (1989) Cognitive dissonance and psychotherapy
In both studies, improvement occurred mainly in behavior, not attitudes
Effort Justification
Study 1 – how close can an individual get to a snake?
2x2:
Therapy Difficulty: Low effort | High Effort
Decision Freedom: Low choice | High Choice
Greatest decreased phobic response= high dissonance / need to justify = high effort and high choice
*“why not get better?” need to to improve increased willingness to commit
Study 2 – examined social fears during speeches Participants were either told the therapy would require a large amount of effort or a little
Some also provided with information regarding the room (i.e. temp., humidity, etc) as a way to misattribute discomfort to to the room
Absent misattribution and high effort spoke the longest
*counters self-perception theory–no attitude change
Improvement without treatment
Fried & Aronson, (1995)
Focused on hypocrisy with recycling behaviors
Asked participants to give speeches about benefits of recycling, told talk would be videotaped and shown at different schools
Afterwards, had participants think about a time when they did not recycle
o Created feelings of dissonance
o Participants resolved these feelings by being more likely to volunteering to make phone calls to promote recycling behaviors
Self-Affirmation Theory
Thoughts and actions are motivated by a desire to maintain a self-image as moral, adaptive, and capable.
Affirming alternative sources of self-integrity results in greater openness to self-threatening information.
People may not try to reduce dissonance if they can maintain (affirm) their self-concept by proving that they are competent in other ways.
*better if affirmation is in non-relevant domain
Self-affirmation and openness to attitude change
*threat to self-integrity not as scary
Self-affirmation counters ego depletion and mortality salience effects
Self-affirmed are:
More likely to negotiate
More likely to lose weight–e.g. don’t need to eat ice cream to feel better
Lowering environmental threats in school setting,
Facebook usage
• an apparent self-affirmation source
Howell & Shepperd (2012): self-affirmation and health messages
We often resist threatening messages
However, when self-affirmed, we are more likely to accept these threatening messages
Screened for fictitious diseases (TAA deficiency)
• In non-affirmation group – discuss values of others
• In affirmation group – recognize self-views/values
More likely to accept threatening health-related information
• Self-affirming and openness to attitude change
Stereotype Threat
Being at risk of confirming a negative stereotype about one’s group
e. g. minority group’s performance on standardized tests
e. g. SES and academic performance; women and math skills; white males and athletics; age and memory
Quinn et al (2004)
Examined the effects of concealable stigmas an stereotype threat
Revealing history of mental illness decreased academic performance
