Rationalization & Belief Flashcards
Rationalization:
A: We rationalize daily to make undesirable outcomes seem better. While it’s easy to see others rationalizing, we often miss our own. Rationalization helps us feel consistent and authentic by convincing ourselves we wanted the outcome we got, such as preferring job B after not getting job A. This behavior is common in decisions about schools, jobs, dating, and competitions. It can seem inauthentic and uncomfortable when observed in others, reflecting our need to feel consistent and authentic (Hypothesis 5).
B: We rationalize daily to make desirable outcomes seem worse. While it’s easy to see others rationalizing, we often miss our own. Rationalization helps us feel inconsistent and inauthentic by convincing ourselves we didn’t want the outcome we got, such as preferring job A after getting job B. This behavior is common in decisions about schools, jobs, dating, and competitions. It can seem authentic and comfortable when observed in others, reflecting our need to feel inconsistent and inauthentic (Hypothesis 5).
C: We rationalize daily to make desirable outcomes seem better. While it’s easy to see others rationalizing, we often miss our own. Rationalization helps us feel inconsistent and inauthentic by convincing ourselves we didn’t want the outcome we got, such as preferring job B after getting job A. This behavior is uncommon in decisions about schools, jobs, dating, and competitions. It can seem authentic and comfortable when observed in others, reflecting our need to feel inconsistent and inauthentic (Hypothesis 5).
A: We rationalize daily to make undesirable outcomes seem better. While it’s easy to see others rationalizing, we often miss our own. Rationalization helps us feel consistent and authentic by convincing ourselves we wanted the outcome we got, such as preferring job B after not getting job A. This behavior is common in decisions about schools, jobs, dating, and competitions. It can seem inauthentic and uncomfortable when observed in others, reflecting our need to feel consistent and authentic (Hypothesis 5).
Cognitive Consistency and Balance Theory (Fritz Heider, 1946):
A: This theory focuses on the idea that people thrive on inconsistency in their beliefs and relationships. It posits that when there is an imbalance, such as liking a friend who holds opposing political views, it creates excitement and motivation. People seek out these imbalances to add variety and challenge to their lives.
B: This theory deals with maintaining consistent beliefs and relationships. If you like Jim but dislike that he steals candy, it creates an unbalanced triad and tension. People strive for consistency in their beliefs and relationships, liking those who share similar values. To resolve the imbalance, you could change your opinion about Jim, change your view on stealing candy, or persuade Jim to stop stealing. Balance theory focuses on the alignment of your beliefs, others’ beliefs, and your relationship with them (interpersonal theory), seeking a positive, balanced state to reduce tension.
C: This theory suggests that people are indifferent to consistency among their beliefs and relationships. It posits that when there is an inconsistency, such as liking a friend who holds opposing political views, it does not create any psychological tension. People are comfortable with contradictions and do not feel the need to resolve them.
B: This theory deals with maintaining consistent beliefs and relationships. If you like Jim but dislike that he steals candy, it creates an unbalanced triad and tension. People strive for consistency in their beliefs and relationships, liking those who share similar values. To resolve the imbalance, you could change your opinion about Jim, change your view on stealing candy, or persuade Jim to stop stealing. Balance theory focuses on the alignment of your beliefs, others’ beliefs, and your relationship with them (interpersonal theory), seeking a positive, balanced state to reduce tension.
When prophecy fails (Festinger, 1956):
A: Festinger’s study showed that when people invest heavily in a belief, they often abandon it immediately when it’s proven wrong, preferring to accept they were mistaken rather than experience discomfort.
B: Festinger’s research demonstrated that people, when confronted with disconfirming evidence to their deeply held beliefs, will abandon those beliefs quickly to avoid embarrassment.
C: Festinger, a renowned social psychologist, infiltrated and studied a cult led by Marian Keech, who predicted the world would be destroyed on December 21, 1954, but her followers would be saved. Despite nothing happening at the predicted time, the seekers did not abandon their beliefs. Instead, they rationalized that their faith impressed God, who spared the world, highlighting cognitive dissonance and rationalization.
C: Festinger, a renowned social psychologist, infiltrated and studied a cult led by Marian Keech, who predicted the world would be destroyed on December 21, 1954, but her followers would be saved. Despite nothing happening at the predicted time, the seekers did not abandon their beliefs. Instead, they rationalized that their faith impressed God, who spared the world, highlighting cognitive dissonance and rationalization.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory - Leon Festinger (1957):
A: Festinger’s theory claims that cognitive dissonance occurs only in extreme situations where beliefs are fundamentally incompatible, and most people can easily ignore minor contradictions without feeling discomfort.
B: Festinger’s theory focuses on intrapersonal conflict, unlike balance theory which is interpersonal. Cognitive dissonance occurs when two of an individual’s own cognitions conflict, often involving awareness of a behavior. For example, if a professor asks students to flip her off, they may feel conflicted between respecting their professor and following her unusual request. This conflict creates an aversive feeling called “dissonance,” which individuals are motivated to resolve to achieve internal consistency.
C: Festinger’s theory suggests that cognitive dissonance is a process where conflicting cognitions are quickly resolved without much discomfort, as individuals are generally indifferent to minor inconsistencies in their beliefs and behaviors.
B: Festinger’s theory focuses on intrapersonal conflict, unlike balance theory which is interpersonal. Cognitive dissonance occurs when two of an individual’s own cognitions conflict, often involving awareness of a behavior. For example, if a professor asks students to flip her off, they may feel conflicted between respecting their professor and following her unusual request. This conflict creates an aversive feeling called “dissonance,” which individuals are motivated to resolve to achieve internal consistency.
2 main options to reduce Cognitive Dissonance:
A: People can ignore the dissonance entirely, pretending the conflicting beliefs or behaviors do not exist. They can also choose to avoid situations or information that might increase the dissonance.
B: People can change their attitudes or beliefs to make them consistent with one another, such as changing their view on stealing to align with their liking of Jim. Alternatively, they can justify or minimize the conflict between the conflicting beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort.
C: People can deny the existence of any conflicting beliefs or behaviors, convincing themselves there is no dissonance. They can also distract themselves with unrelated activities to avoid thinking about the dissonance.
B: People can change their attitudes or beliefs to make them consistent with one another, such as changing their view on stealing to align with their liking of Jim. Alternatively, they can justify or minimize the conflict between the conflicting beliefs or behaviors to reduce the discomfort.
Insufficient Justification - Classic Study #1 (Festinger & Carlsmith):
A: Participants performed an exciting task for an hour and were then asked to tell the next subject it was boring. Half were paid $5 to lie, and the other half were paid $50. Surprisingly, those paid $5 reported liking the task less than those paid $50. This is explained by the insufficient justification paradigm: $50 participants could justify their lie as being worth the money, thus experiencing no attitude change. In contrast, $5 participants experienced dissonance because the payment was insufficient to justify lying, leading them to change their attitude and convince themselves they disliked the task to reduce the dissonance.
B: Participants performed a boring task for an hour and were then asked to tell the next subject it was exciting. Half were paid $1 to lie, and the other half were paid $20. Surprisingly, those paid $1 reported liking the task more than those paid $20. This is explained by the insufficient justification paradigm: $20 participants could justify their lie as being worth the money, thus experiencing no attitude change. In contrast, $1 participants experienced dissonance because the payment was insufficient to justify lying, leading them to change their attitude and convince themselves they enjoyed the task to reduce the dissonance.
C: Participants performed a boring task for an hour and were then asked to tell the next subject it was exciting. Half were paid $10 to lie, and the other half were paid $100. Surprisingly, those paid $10 reported liking the task more than those paid $100. This is explained by the insufficient justification paradigm: $100 participants could justify their lie as being worth the money, thus experiencing no attitude change. In contrast, $10 participants experienced dissonance because the payment was insufficient to justify lying, leading them to change their attitude and convince themselves they enjoyed the task to reduce the dissonance.
B: Participants performed a boring task for an hour and were then asked to tell the next subject it was exciting. Half were paid $1 to lie, and the other half were paid $20. Surprisingly, those paid $1 reported liking the task more than those paid $20. This is explained by the insufficient justification paradigm: $20 participants could justify their lie as being worth the money, thus experiencing no attitude change. In contrast, $1 participants experienced dissonance because the payment was insufficient to justify lying, leading them to change their attitude and convince themselves they enjoyed the task to reduce the dissonance.
Free Choice - Classic Study #2 (Brehm, 1956):
A: Housewives initially ranked 8 appliances in terms of preference. They were then given either a choice between items ranked #2 and #3 (Free Choice) or simply given item #2 (No Choice). Afterward, they ranked the appliances again. The study examined changes in ratings between the first and second rankings. When given no choice, attitudes became more inconsistent. However, those given a choice decreased the rating of the chosen item and increased the rating of the rejected item, focusing on negatives of the chosen and positives of the rejected. Dissonance was absent for those who freely chose between items. This adjustment helped increase dissonance from the decision.
B: Housewives initially ranked 8 appliances in terms of preference. They were then given either a choice between items ranked #6 and #7 (Free Choice) or simply given item #6 (No Choice). Afterward, they ranked the appliances again. The study examined changes in ratings between the first and second rankings. When given no choice, attitudes remained highly variable. However, those given a choice rated both items equally, focusing on neither the positives nor negatives of either item. Dissonance did not arise for those who freely chose between items. This lack of adjustment, called the spreading of consistency, reduced the need to address dissonance from the decision.
C: Housewives initially ranked 8 appliances in terms of preference. They were then given either a choice between items ranked #4 and #5 (Free Choice) or simply given item #4 (No Choice). Afterward, they ranked the appliances again. The study examined changes in ratings between the first and second rankings. When given no choice, attitudes remained consistent. However, those given a choice increased the rating of the chosen item and decreased the rating of the rejected item, focusing on positives of the chosen and negatives of the rejected. Dissonance arose for those who freely chose between items. This adjustment, called the spreading of alternatives, helped reduce dissonance from the decision.
C: Housewives initially ranked 8 appliances in terms of preference. They were then given either a choice between items ranked #4 and #5 (Free Choice) or simply given item #4 (No Choice). Afterward, they ranked the appliances again. The study examined changes in ratings between the first and second rankings. When given no choice, attitudes remained consistent. However, those given a choice increased the rating of the chosen item and decreased the rating of the rejected item, focusing on positives of the chosen and negatives of the rejected. Dissonance arose for those who freely chose between items. This adjustment, called the spreading of alternatives, helped reduce dissonance from the decision.
Spreading of Alternatives:
A: After making a decision, we tend to view all options equally and feel no need to justify our choice. This effect is stronger if we initially disliked all the options. It applies to trivial decisions like choosing a pen or a pencil. For example, choosing a red pen over a blue pen leads you to maintain an equal rating for both, avoiding any adjustment to reduce cognitive dissonance.
B: After making a decision, we feel no need to change our ratings of the chosen or rejected options. This effect is consistent regardless of our initial preferences. It applies to all types of decisions, major or minor, like choosing a meal or a career. For example, choosing pasta over salad leads you to keep the same rating for both, with no adjustment to justify the choice or reduce cognitive dissonance.
C: After making a decision, we rate the chosen option more positively and the rejected one more negatively. This effect is stronger if we initially liked the rejected option. It applies to major life choices like selecting a major or romantic partner. For example, choosing Steve over Mike leads you to focus on Steve’s strengths and Mike’s weaknesses, adjusting your ratings to justify the choice and reduce cognitive dissonance.
C: After making a decision, we rate the chosen option more positively and the rejected one more negatively. This effect is stronger if we initially liked the rejected option. It applies to major life choices like selecting a major or romantic partner. For example, choosing Steve over Mike leads you to focus on Steve’s strengths and Mike’s weaknesses, adjusting your ratings to justify the choice and reduce cognitive dissonance.
Effort = Liking, Classic Study #3, Initiation Rites:
A: Women invited to join a discussion group underwent varying initiation tests: a control task (boring passage), mild initiation (slightly taboo paragraph), or severe initiation (very taboo paragraph). After the test, they rated their liking for the group. Women in the severe initiation group rated the group much higher than those in the other groups. The unpleasant initiation created cognitive dissonance, which they resolved by valuing the group more highly, a phenomenon also seen in fraternities and military initiations.
B: Women invited to join a discussion group underwent varying initiation tests: a control task (easy quiz), moderate initiation (general knowledge questions), or intense initiation (difficult math problems). After the test, they rated their liking for the group. Women in the moderate initiation group rated the group much higher than those in the other groups. The mild initiation created cognitive dissonance, which they resolved by valuing the group more highly, showing that moderate effort leads to increased liking.
C: Women invited to join a discussion group underwent varying initiation tests: a control task (watching a video), mild initiation (reading a neutral article), or severe initiation (participating in a debate). After the test, they rated their liking for the group. Women in the control task group rated the group much higher than those in the other groups. The lack of initiation created cognitive dissonance, which they resolved by valuing the group more highly, indicating that no effort leads to increased liking.
A: Women invited to join a discussion group underwent varying initiation tests: a control task (boring passage), mild initiation (slightly taboo paragraph), or severe initiation (very taboo paragraph). After the test, they rated their liking for the group. Women in the severe initiation group rated the group much higher than those in the other groups. The unpleasant initiation created cognitive dissonance, which they resolved by valuing the group more highly, a phenomenon also seen in fraternities and military initiations.
Ben Franklin Effect:
A: This effect suggests that people who have done you a favor are less likely to help you again because they feel taken advantage of. If you want someone to like you, avoid asking for favors. This is because they will justify their reluctance by convincing themselves they dislike you, increasing cognitive dissonance.
B: This effect suggests that people who have received a favor from you are more likely to dislike you, as they feel indebted and uncomfortable. If you want someone to like you, avoid doing them favors. This is because they will justify their discomfort by convincing themselves they dislike you, increasing cognitive dissonance.
C: This effect suggests that someone who has done you a favor is more likely to do you another favor than someone whom you have helped. If you want someone to like you, get them to do a favor for you. This is because they will justify their action by convincing themselves they like you, reducing cognitive dissonance. This rationalization helps them feel comfortable with their behavior, leading to a “slippery slope” where they continue to help you.
C: This effect suggests that someone who has done you a favor is more likely to do you another favor than someone whom you have helped. If you want someone to like you, get them to do a favor for you. This is because they will justify their action by convincing themselves they like you, reducing cognitive dissonance. This rationalization helps them feel comfortable with their behavior, leading to a “slippery slope” where they continue to help you.
Counterattitudinal Essays - Classic Study #4 (Bem & McConnnell, 1970):
A: Participants initially rated their attitude towards raising tuition, then wrote essays supporting it. Some felt coerced, while others believed they chose freely, with a control group writing no essay. Those who believed they chose freely experienced cognitive dissonance, leading to a significant attitude change to justify their behavior. A week later, they misremembered their initial attitudes to align with their new ones, remaining unaware of their attitude change. This study shows that people adjust their attitudes to match their actions and misremember past attitudes to maintain consistency.
B: Participants initially rated their attitude towards lowering the voting age, then wrote essays against it. Some felt they were under pressure, while others believed they wrote freely, with a control group writing no essay. Those who felt coerced experienced cognitive dissonance and significantly changed their attitudes to justify their behavior. A week later, they accurately remembered their initial attitudes, showing that coercion can lead to temporary attitude change without affecting memory. This study indicates that forced behavior can alter attitudes but does not necessarily change memory of past beliefs.
C: Participants wrote essays against their own beliefs about the benefits of exercise. Some were given a reward, while others wrote the essays without any incentive, and a control group did not write an essay. Those who received a reward felt justified in their actions and experienced no change in their attitudes. However, those who wrote without incentive experienced cognitive dissonance, leading to a significant attitude change to align with their behavior. This study demonstrates that lack of external justification can lead to attitude change.
A: Participants initially rated their attitude towards raising tuition, then wrote essays supporting it. Some felt coerced, while others believed they chose freely, with a control group writing no essay. Those who believed they chose freely experienced cognitive dissonance, leading to a significant attitude change to justify their behavior. A week later, they misremembered their initial attitudes to align with their new ones, remaining unaware of their attitude change. This study shows that people adjust their attitudes to match their actions and misremember past attitudes to maintain consistency.
Why do we misremember attitudes?
A: Attitudes are inherently unstable and change frequently, making them difficult to remember accurately. Our minds prioritize current attitudes over past ones, often discarding previous beliefs entirely. This leads to a natural forgetting process, where only the most recent attitudes are accessible, and past attitudes are often lost or misremembered.
B: Attitudes are not stored with specific contextual tags, making them easy to misremember. Unlike detailed memories, attitudes lack associations with specific events. We often misremember things to serve our current goals. Michael Ross found that people misremember past events, like SAT scores and weight, to align with their current beliefs. For example, people may recall doing worse on the SATs to justify the perceived improvement after a prep course, avoiding the feeling of wasted effort and resources.
C: Attitudes are stored with precise contextual tags, making them difficult to misremember. Our minds keep detailed records of past beliefs and the situations in which they were formed. This specificity ensures that attitudes are recalled accurately, as they are linked to distinct memories and events. Thus, misremembering attitudes is rare and usually occurs only when there is significant cognitive decline.
B: Attitudes are not stored with specific contextual tags, making them easy to misremember. Unlike detailed memories, attitudes lack associations with specific events. We often misremember things to serve our current goals. Michael Ross found that people misremember past events, like SAT scores and weight, to align with their current beliefs. For example, people may recall doing worse on the SATs to justify the perceived improvement after a prep course, avoiding the feeling of wasted effort and resources.
How do we tell ourselves to like something that we naturally don’t like (dissonance reduction)?
A: It starts when an initial attitude is challenged by a counterattitudinal event, creating cognitive dissonance. For example, if you lie about something significant despite believing lying is wrong. This is followed by physiological arousal (an unpleasant feeling about lying) and awareness of your discomfort. When you become aware of this discomfort you attribute it to the lie that’s conflicting with your values. To alleviate this discomfort, you may change your attitude about the lie or lying in general, thus resolving the dissonance.
B: It begins when an initial attitude is supported by a confirming event, creating cognitive harmony. For example, if you help someone and believe helping is good, it creates a pleasant feeling. This is followed by physiological relaxation and a sense of satisfaction. When you become aware of this comfort, you attribute it to the action that aligns with your values. To maintain this comfort, you may reinforce your positive attitude about helping, thus enhancing your cognitive harmony.
C: It starts when an initial attitude is accepted without any challenge or event, leading to cognitive stability. For example, if you naturally dislike exercise and avoid it without any conflicting experience, there is no dissonance. This is followed by a lack of physiological arousal and a neutral feeling. Since there is no discomfort to address, your attitude remains unchanged, and you continue to dislike exercise without any need for dissonance reduction.
A: It starts when an initial attitude is challenged by a counterattitudinal event, creating cognitive dissonance. For example, if you lie about something significant despite believing lying is wrong. This is followed by physiological arousal (an unpleasant feeling about lying) and awareness of your discomfort. When you become aware of this discomfort you attribute it to the lie that’s conflicting with your values. To alleviate this discomfort, you may change your attitude about the lie or lying in general, thus resolving the dissonance.
But what if you mistakenly attribute the arousal to something else? STUDY: Misattribution of Dissonance Arousal (Zanna & Cooper, 1974):
A: Participants wrote counterattitudinal essays about raising tuition either by force or free choice while being given a placebo pill. They were told the pill would either cause arousal (nervousness), relaxation or they were given no pill at all (control). Those given no pill were more likely to change their attitude if they felt they freely chose to write the essay. If coerced, they had justification and experienced less cognitive dissonance. The arousal pill group experienced the least attitude change and cognitive dissonance. They attributed their discomfort to the pill, not the essay, using it as justification to alleviate their dissonance. The relaxatin group who believed they freely chose to write the essay experienced the most attitude change and cognitive dissonance. The expected relaxation didn’t occur, leaving them without an external justification for their discomfort, so they changed their attitude about the essay to reduce dissonance.
B: Participants wrote pro-attitudinal essays about raising tuition either by force or free choice while being given a placebo pill. They were told the pill would either cause arousal (happiness), relaxation, or they were given no pill at all (control). Those given no pill were less likely to change their attitude if they felt they freely chose to write the essay. If coerced, they experienced more cognitive dissonance and attitude change. The arousal pill group experienced the most attitude change and cognitive dissonance. They attributed their discomfort to the essay, not the pill, leading to increased dissonance. The relaxation group who believed they freely chose to write the essay experienced the least attitude change and cognitive dissonance. The expected relaxation occurred, providing external justification for their discomfort, so they did not change their attitude about the essay.
C: Participants wrote counterattitudinal essays about lowering tuition either by force or free choice while being given a placebo pill. They were told the pill would either cause relaxation (calmness), arousal, or they were given no pill at all (control). Those given no pill experienced significant attitude change regardless of whether they felt they freely chose to write the essay. If coerced, they still experienced cognitive dissonance. The relaxation pill group experienced the least attitude change and cognitive dissonance. They attributed their discomfort to the essay, not the pill, leading to minimal dissonance. The arousal group who believed they freely chose to write the essay experienced the most attitude change and cognitive dissonance. The expected arousal didn’t occur, leaving them without an external justification for their discomfort, so they changed their attitude about the essay to reduce dissonance.
A: Participants wrote counterattitudinal essays about raising tuition either by force or free choice while being given a placebo pill. They were told the pill would either cause arousal (nervousness), relaxation or they were given no pill at all (control). Those given no pill were more likely to change their attitude if they felt they freely chose to write the essay. If coerced, they had justification and experienced less cognitive dissonance. The arousal pill group experienced the least attitude change and cognitive dissonance. They attributed their discomfort to the pill, not the essay, using it as justification to alleviate their dissonance. The relaxatin group who believed they freely chose to write the essay experienced the most attitude change and cognitive dissonance. The expected relaxation didn’t occur, leaving them without an external justification for their discomfort, so they changed their attitude about the essay to reduce dissonance.
Is Cognitive Dissonance Always Conscious?
A: Cognitive dissonance is always a fully conscious process, where individuals are acutely aware of the discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs and actively work to resolve it. This awareness includes recognizing the conflict, understanding its source, and deliberately changing attitudes or behaviors to reduce the dissonance.
B: Cognitive dissonance is always unconscious, where individuals never notice the discomfort caused by conflicting beliefs and passively adjust their attitudes or behaviors without any awareness of the underlying process. This lack of awareness means they do not recognize or understand the sources of their inconsistencies.
C: Most of the time, we are unaware that we are rationalizing. This lack of awareness can lead to not fully understanding ourselves and our motivations (Hypotheses 2 & 3) and can cause us to misunderstand others, assuming they know they are rationalizing when they don’t. Early researchers, like Festinger, believed dissonance reduction was a conscious process with awareness of discomfort requiring awareness, attribution to discrepancy requiring explicit memory, and attitude change requiring thinking.
C: Most of the time, we are unaware that we are rationalizing. This lack of awareness can lead to not fully understanding ourselves and our motivations (Hypotheses 2 & 3) and can cause us to misunderstand others, assuming they know they are rationalizing when they don’t. Early researchers, like Festinger, believed dissonance reduction was a conscious process with awareness of discomfort requiring awareness, attribution to discrepancy requiring explicit memory, and attitude change requiring thinking.
