1. The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm
Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) had children sitting individually in a lab. They told each child that they are now going out for a moment, and that the child may play with one of two toys, but is forbidden to play with the other, very attractive toy until the experimenter is back.
Contributor
© POSbase 2005

2. The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm
There were two conditions:
In the mild threat condition, the experimenter told the child not to touch the attractive toy until he is back, with only mild threats.
In the severe threat condition, the experimenter threatened to leave the room with all the toys and to think that the child is a baby.
After the experimenter came back, children had to evaluate the forbidden toy.
© POSbase 2005

3. The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm
Children in the severe threat condition evaluated the toy more positively than the children in the mild threat condition.
The authors explained this finding with the need to reduce cognitive dissonance which was aroused by not playing with what one likes most.
© POSbase 2005

4. The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm
Dissonance was higher for children in the mild threat condition because they had less justification to leave the toy untouched than children in the severe threat condition.
Therefore, children in the mild threat condition adjusted their attitude towards their behavior and felt the forbidden toy to be less attractive than the severe threat condition.
© POSbase 2005

5. The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm
This study is a variant of the induced-compliance paradigm (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).
It helps explaining why children like to play with forbidden toys (see Freedman, 1965). According to the present study, parents who want to induce a stable attitude should not punish too harshly, because the attitude rebounds if the threat of punishment – and with it the justification to obey – is taken away.
© POSbase 2005