S1W9Diss

Question 1

UFO cult – the seekers

Answer 1

First failed prophecy:

• Confusion
• We delayed apocalypse
• Increased engagement

Second failed prophecy:
• Group disintegrates except for core members

Question 2

The Millerites

Answer 2

Christian group that believed in an apocalypse.

Their beliefs survived the first two failures but after the third they gave up.

Question 3

Harold Camping

Answer 3

Worked on the radio and believed in an apocalypse in 1994 & 2011.

Following two failures his empire collapsed and his followers left.

Question 4

Failed prophecies and cognitive dissonance

Answer 4

1: Heavy psychological investment in group
2. Outside evidence that beliefs are untrue

1 + 2 = cognitive dissonance

Question 5

Dissonance reduction strategies

Answer 5

Ignore or deny contradiction.

Change one thought or behaviour so consonance restores.

Add something new to rationalise dissonance.

People take path of least resistance.

Question 6

Festinger dissonance formula

Answer 6

D / D+C

D = number of cognitions that are dissonant in a belief

C = number of cognitions that are constant with it

First failure: dissonance leads to a higher valuing of the group

Subsequent failures dissonance intensifies so rationalisations are less likely so people leave.

Question 7

Hazing

Answer 7

Harsh initiations increase commitment to the group in question.

• C1 – ‘I did some humiliating things to be part of the group’
• C2 – ‘This group is okay but not perfect’

C1 + C2 = dissonance

Resolution – ‘this group must be great to have been worth it’.

Question 8

Aronson & Mills

Answer 8

Some people did harsh initiation (reading pornography) to get into book club and some people did nothing.

The people that did the initiation were more committed to the group.

Question 9

Forced compliance

Answer 9

When people are forced to do something they’ll end up trying to convince themselves thar they wanted to do it.

Example – write an essay advocating a position you disagree with

C1 = I don’t believe in this argument

C2 = I presented an essay saying I agreed with it

C1 + C2 = dissonance

Resolution – It’s not that far from what I believe.

Question 10

Peg turning study

Answer 10

Boring peg task.

Participants to tell people it was a fun task.

1 = £20 to tell them
2 = £1 to tell them

People in £1 condition changed attitude to think task was fun to justify their actions.

Question 11

Effort justification (forbidden toy study)

Answer 11

Rank toys in order of preference.

You can play with toys but not 2nd favourite.

Strong or mild threat.

Strong threat = improved rating of forbidden toy as it must be amazing if it’s forbidden (external)

Weak threat = no change (could play if I wanted so maybe I don’t like it that much)

Question 12

Post-decision rationalisation

Answer 12

If you have to decide between two things to buy and it’s a close choice, the decision will create dissonance.

C1 – this is good so I bought it
C2 – I really liked the other one too

C1 + C2 = dissonance

Resolution – this thing is actually great and the other thing isn’t nearly as good (choice-supportive bias).

Question 13

Threat compensation

Answer 13

Threats to treasured world views are often rationalised away.

Example – bad things happen to bad people.

Threat to this belief - sexual assault

Resolution – victim blaming

Victim blaming is a way of getting rid of dissonance from threats to your worldview.

Question 14

The role of choice

Answer 14

Key factor is the perceived freedom of choice.

Choice is perceived as more reflective of the self, and can therefore lead to stronger dissonance

‘I chose not to play with the toy’

vs.

‘They ordered me not to play with it’.

Question 15

Physiological correlations

Answer 15

Increased skin conductance in dissonance but doesn’t disappear right away when resolved.

Suggestions that the Dorsal Lateral Prefrontal Cortex and the ACC may be involved.

Question 16

Aronson’s self-consistency theory

Answer 16

More self focused.

Not the fact that thoughts conflict, but the fact that we are being consistent in how we think about ourselves.

Dissonance processes should work differently for people with high/low self esteem.

Low self esteem would suggest that people don’t care about consistency but this isn’t true.

Question 17

Self affirmation theory

Answer 17

Dissonance is troubling because it threatens the image of the self as moral and adaptive.

When participants are given a chance to affirm their personal values, dissonance doesn’t occur.

Dissonance theory explains this via relative importance.

Question 18

Relative importance

Answer 18

Thinking about personal values makes the dissonance in a single experiment seem inconsequential.

Question 19

New Look theory

Answer 19

People feel guilty for producing negative consequences.

Theory can’t account for every instance of dissonance.

e.g. post-decision rationalisation has no negative consequences.

Question 20

Action-based model of dissonance

Answer 20

Driven to avoid dissonance as it impairs ability to take decisive action (evolutionary).

Thoughts aren’t important but action tendencies (tendency to take action in a situation) are.

Good for post-decision rationalisation.

A way of putting decisions into action so we’re not paralysed by indecision.

‘The decision has been made and we can move on.’

Question 21

Motivated reasoning

Answer 21

People driven by accuracy motive – want to be right.

BUT dissonance effects are part of a drive to believe things you want and disbelieve things you don’t, rather than being right.

Question 22

Balance theory

Answer 22

Describes relationships as either positive or negatives

A network of relationships is ‘balanced’ if the number of negative relationships are even (both you and friend hate lecturer).

Unbalanced (you hate friend’s boyfriend but she doesn’t):

Resolve this unbalance by liking the boyfriend or ditching your friend.

Question 23

Parallel constraint satisfaction (PCS)

Answer 23

Computer modelling approach.

Based on balance theory.

Draws positive and negative relationships between things.

Shows things that contradict each other and cannot be true if the other is true.

Accurate at predicting trial outcomes in court.