Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:

Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:
The Costs and Benefits of Dissonance Reduction In this chapter, you will learn about how and why people justify their actions. You will learn about the theory of cognitive dissonance and be able to use it to understand self-justification of both positive and negative behaviors.

This multimedia product and its contents are protected under copyright law. The following are prohibited by law: any public performance or display, including transmission of any image over a network; preparation of any derivative work, including the extraction, in whole or in part, of any images; any rental, lease, or lending of the program.

Multimedia Directory Slide 15 Dissonance Reduction Video
Slide 26 Lowballing Video Slide 45 Hazing Video Slide 51 External Justification Video

Heaven’s Gate Cult Believed that a space ship was coming to transport them Needed to rid selves of “current containers” (own body) Spaceship failed to appear behind Hale-Bopp Comet Continued with plan anyway Mass suicide Extreme example of Need to Justify Actions On March 26, 1997, thirty-nine members of the Heaven’s Gate cult in Rancho Santa Fe, California, were found dead—participants in a mass suicide. The cult members died willingly and peacefully, and didn’t really consider it suicide. They believed a spaceship behind the Hale-Bopp Comet was their ticket to a new life in paradise. When members of the Heaven’s Gate cult could not find a spaceship behind the comet, they returned their telescope for a refund. Their attitude was clear, and given their premise, their logic was impeccable: We know an alien spaceship is following behind the Hale-Bopp Comet, and if an expensive telescope failed to reveal that spaceship, then there must be something wrong with the telescope. Generally speaking, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult were not stupid, irrational or crazy. Neighbors considered them pleasant, smart, reasonable people. Their behavior was an extreme example of a normal human tendency: The need to justify our actions.

Maintaining a Stable, Positive Self-Image
As humans, we strive to maintain a favorable view of ourselves When confronted with unfavorable view of self Experience discomfort We humans strive to maintain a relatively favorable view of ourselves, particularly when we encounter evidence that contradicts our typically rosy self-image. Most of us want to believe that we are reasonable, decent folks who make wise decisions, do not behave immorally, and have integrity. We want to believe that we do not do stupid, cruel, or absurd things. (Aronson, 1969, 1992a, 1998; Wicklund & Brehm, 1998) If we are confronted with information implying that we may have behaved in ways that are irrational, immoral, or stupid, we experience a good deal of discomfort.

The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
Feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that runs counter to one’s customary (typically positive) conception of oneself is referred to as cognitive dissonance.

The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957)
Important and provocative social psychological theory Threats to self-image Induces powerful, upsetting dissonance Leon Festinger (1957) was the first to investigate the precise workings of this powerful phenomenon and elaborated his findings into what is arguably social psychology’s most important and most provocative theory, the theory of cognitive dissonance. Dissonance is most powerful and most upsetting when people behave in ways that threaten their self-image. At first, social psychologists believed that cognitive dissonance could be caused by any two conflicting cognitions (thoughts or opinions) (Brehm & Cohen, 1962; Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Aronson, 1960). But later research made it clear that not all cognitive inconsistencies are equally upsetting.

Three Ways to Reduce Dissonance
Change behavior Justify behavior by changing one of the dissonant cognitions Justify behavior by adding new cognitions Cognitive dissonance always produces discomfort, and, in response, we try to reduce it. The process is very similar to the effects of hunger and thirst: Discomfort motivates us to eat or drink. But unlike satisfying hunger or thirst by eating or drinking, the path to reducing dissonance is not always simple or obvious. In fact, it can lead to fascinating changes in the way we think about the world and the way we behave. There are three basic ways we try to reduce cognitive dissonance: •By changing our behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition. •By attempting to justify our behavior through changing one of the dissonant cognitions. •By attempting to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.

Researchers studied heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic and succeeded in quitting smoking for a while but then relapsed into heavy smoking again. Heavy smokers who tried to quit and failed actually succeeded in lowering their perception of the dangers of smoking. In this way, they could continue to smoke without feeling terrible about it (Gibbons, Eggleston, & Benthin, 1997). Smokers can come up with some pretty creative ways to justify their smoking. Some succeed in convincing themselves that the data linking cigarette smoking to cancer are inconclusive. Others try to add new cognitions—for example, the erroneous belief that filters trap most of the harmful chemicals and thus reduce the threat of cancer. Some add a cognition that allows them to focus on the vivid exception: “Look at my grandfather. He’s 87 years old, and he’s been smoking a pack a day since he was 12. That proves it’s not always bad for you.” Still others add the cognition that smoking is an extremely enjoyable activity, one for which it is worth risking cancer. Others even succeed in convincing themselves that all things considered, smoking is worthwhile because it relaxes them, reduces nervous tension, and so on. Figure 6.1 How We Reduce Cognitive Dissonance There are three basic ways of reducing dissonance: change your behavior, change your cognition, or add a new cognition.

Self-Affirmation Bolster the self-concept
Reducing dissonance by adding a cognition about other positive attributes E.g., smoker who fails to quit Not very smart of me to be smoking, but, I’m really a very good mathematician! Although this does not succeed in erasing the foolishness of smoking, it does help her feel good about herself in spite of the fact that she engages in this destructive behavior. This process is called self-affirmation (Steele, 1988; Aronson, Cohen, & Nail, 1999). These distortions are aimed at protecting one’s self image as a sensible, competent, person. One additional way of reducing dissonance is by trying to bolster the self concept in a different domain. The smoker who failed to quit might remind herself of the things she does do well: “Yes, it is not very smart of me to be smoking, but, you know, I’m really a very good mathematician.”

Impact Bias The tendency to overestimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions to future negative events. People often do not anticipate how successfully they will reduce dissonance. For example, people overestimate how dreadful they will feel following a romantic break up or losing a job. (Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1998; Mellers & McGraw, 2001; Wilson & Gilbert, 2005)

Teenagers who smoke usually justify their actions with such cognitions as “Smoking is cool”; “I want to be like my friends”; “in movies, everyone smokes”; “I’m healthy; nothing is going to happen to me”; or “adults are always on my back about stuff I do” Source: Powell John/Prisma/Age Fotostock

Why We Overestimate the Pain of Disappointment
Why does impact bias occur? Process of reducing dissonance is largely unconscious Given that people have successfully reduced dissonance in the past, why is it that they are not aware that they will do so in the future? It is not very effective to hear ourselves say, “I’ll try to make myself feel better by convincing myself that the person who just rejected me is an idiot.” It is more effective if we unconsciously transform our view of the interviewer; we feel better believing that objectively he is an idiot. (Bem & McConnell, 1970; Goethals & Reckman, 1973). Because the dissonance reduction process is mostly unconscious, we do not anticipate that it will save us from future angst.

Self-Esteem and Cognitive Dissonance
High self-esteem Strive to keep behavior consonant with view of self Work harder to reduce dissonance than people with average self-esteem People with the highest self-esteem experience the most dissonance when they behave in ways that are contrary to their high opinion of themselves, and they will work harder to reduce it than will those with average levels of self-esteem.

Dissonance Reduction Video
Click on the screenshot to watch Dr. Tavris discuss how dissonance reduction is often oriented toward protecting self-esteem. Back to Directory

Rational Behavior Versus Rationalizing Behavior
Need to maintain our self-esteem Associated with rationalizing instead of rational thought Process information so that it fits with pre-existing beliefs Most people think of themselves as rational beings, and generally, they are right: We are certainly capable of rational thought. But as we’ve seen, the need to maintain our self-esteem leads to thinking that is not always rational; rather, it is rationalizing. Jones and Kohler (1959) compared people who were for and against segregation. The participants remembered the plausible arguments agreeing with their own position and the implausible arguments agreeing with the opposing position. Subsequent research has yielded similar results on many issues, from whether or not the death penalty deters people from committing murder to t he risks of contracting AIDS through heterosexual contact (e.g., Biek, Wood, & Chaiken, 1996; Edwards & Smith, 1996). Humans do not always process information in an unbiased way. Sometimes, of course, we pursue new information because we want to be accurate in our views or make the wisest decisions. But once we are committed to our views and beliefs, most of us distort new information in a way that confirms them (Hart et al., 2009; Ross, 2010).

Decisions, Decisions, Decisions
Every time we make a decision, we experience dissonance. Chosen alternative has some negative aspects Rejected alternative has some positive aspects In any decision (between two cars, two colleges, two potential lovers), the chosen alternative is seldom entirely positive, and the rejected alternative is seldom entirely negative. So while making the decision, you have doubts. After the decision, your cognition that you are a smart person is dissonant with aspects that didn’t fit your choice.

Once he is hooked on getting a truck, this young man will reason that “it certainly would be safer than a small car, and besides, the price of gasoline is bound to drop by the time I’m 40.” Source: Jeremy Woodhouse/Blend Images/Age Fotostock

Postdecision Dissonance
Dissonance aroused after making a decision, typically reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternatives.

Reducing Post-Decision Dissonance
Distort likes and dislikes Downplay Negative aspects of chosen alternative Positive aspects of rejected alternative Reduce dissonance by downplaying the negative aspects of the one you chose and the positive aspects of the one you rejected. Brehm (1956) posed as a representative of a consumer testing service and asked women to rate the attractiveness and desirability of several kinds of appliances, such as toasters and electric coffeemakers. Each woman was told that as a reward for having participated in the survey, she could have one of the appliances as a gift. She was given a choice between two of the products she had rated as being equally attractive. After she made her decision, her appliance was wrapped up and given to her. Twenty minutes later, each woman was asked to rerate all the products. Brehm found that after receiving the appliance of their choice, the women rated its attractiveness somewhat higher than they had the first time. Not only that, but they drastically lowered their rating of the appliance they might have chosen but decided to reject.

Permanence and Importance of Decision
More important decisions = More dissonance Greater permanence = More dissonance Permanence of decision How difficult it is to revoke In a simple but clever experiment, social psychologists intercepted people who were on their way to place $2 bets and asked them how certain they were that their horses would win (Knox & Inkster, 1968). The investigators also approached other bettors just as they were leaving the $2 window, after having placed their bets, and asked them the same question. Almost invariably, people who had already placed their bets gave their horses a much better chance of winning than those who had not yet placed their bets did. Since only a few minutes separated one group from another, nothing real had occurred to increase the probability of winning; the only thing that had changed was the finality of the decision—and hence the dissonance it produced. The more important the decision, the greater the dissonance. Deciding whom to marry is more important than which coffeemaker to buy.

All sales are final. When will this customer be happier with her new flatscreen TV: ten minutes before the purchase? Ten minutes after the purchase? Source: Newscast/Alamy

Creating the Illusion of Irrevocability
When decisions are permanent (irrevocable) Dissonance increases Motivation to reduce dissonance increases

Lowballing An unscrupulous strategy whereby a salesperson induces a customer to agree to purchase a product at a very low cost, subsequently claims it was an error, and then raises the price. Frequently, the customer will agree to make the purchase at the inflated price. Thus by using dissonance reduction and the illusion of irrevocability, high-pressure salespeople increase the probability that you will decide to buy their product at their price. While the customer’s decision to buy is certainly reversible, a commitment of sorts does exist. In the world of high-pressure sales, even temporary illusion can have powerful consequences. The feeling of commitment triggered the anticipation of an exciting event: driving out with a new car. To have had the anticipated event thwarted (by not going ahead with the deal) would have produced dissonance and disappointment. Although the final price is substantially higher than the customer thought it would be, it is probably only slightly higher than the price at another dealership. Under these circumstances, the customer in effect says, “Oh, what the heck. I’m here, I’ve already filled out the forms, I’ve written out the check—why wait?”

Create illusion of irrevocability to induce motivation to reduce dissonance! Thus by using dissonance reduction and the illusion of irrevocability, high-pressure salespeople increase the probability that you will decide to buy their product at their price. While the customer’s decision to buy is certainly reversible, a commitment of sorts does exist. In the world of high-pressure sales, even temporary illusion can have powerful consequences. The feeling of commitment triggered the anticipation of an exciting event: driving out with a new car. To have had the anticipated event thwarted (by not going ahead with the deal) would have produced dissonance and disappointment. Although the final price is substantially higher than the customer thought it would be, it is probably only slightly higher than the price at another dealership. Under these circumstances, the customer in effect says, “Oh, what the heck. I’m here, I’ve already filled out the forms, I’ve written out the check—why wait?”

Lowballing Video Click on the screenshot to watch Dr. Cialdini briefly explain how car salesmen use lowballing to increase their sales. Back to Directory

The Decision to Behave Immorally
When is it okay to lie to a friend? When is an act of stealing, and when is it borrowing?

After he cheats, this student will try to convince himself that everybody would cheat if they had the chance. Source: Pixtal/Glow Images, Inc.

Moral dilemmas Implications for self-esteem Dissonance reduction People may behave either more ethically or less ethically in the future Moral dilemmas involve powerful implications for one’s self-esteem. Dissonance reduction following a difficult moral decision can cause people to behave either more or less ethically in the future.

Example—Cheating on a test Dissonance Positive view of self inconsistent with dishonest behavior How to reduce dissonance? Change attitude about cheating “Not a big deal, everyone does it” Future behavior—less ethical Suppose you decide to cheat on a test. How do you reduce the dissonance? According to dissonance theory, it is likely that you would try to justify the action by finding a way to minimize the negative aspects of the action you chose. You could adopt a more lenient attitude toward cheating, convincing yourself that it is a victimless crime that does not hurt anybody, that everybody does it, and so it’s not really that bad.

Figure 6. 2 The Cheating Pyramid Imagine two students taking an exam
Figure 6.2 The Cheating Pyramid Imagine two students taking an exam. Both are tempted to cheat. Initially, their attitudes toward cheating are almost identical, but then one impulsively cheats and the other does not. Their attitudes will then undergo predictable changes. (Created by Carol Tavris. Used by permission.)

Example—Cheating on a test Change behavior Do not ever cheat again Future behavior—more ethical Suppose you decide to cheat on a test. How do you reduce the dissonance? According to dissonance theory, it is likely that you would try to justify the action by finding a way to minimize the negative aspects of the action you chose. You could adopt a more lenient attitude toward cheating, convincing yourself that it is a victimless crime that does not hurt anybody, that everybody does it, and so it’s not really that bad.

Example—Decide NOT to cheat Post-decision dissonance “Would have received better grade if cheated” Reducing dissonance Change attitude To justify giving up a good grade, you convince yourself that cheating is even worse than you previously felt it was Attitude becomes more extreme How would you reduce your dissonance? You could change your attitude about the morality of the act—but this time in the opposite direction. To justify giving up a good grade, you convince yourself that cheating is even worse than you previously felt it was. WHAT HAS HAPPENED IS NOT MERELY A RATIONALIZATION OF YOUR OWN BEHAVIOR BUT AN ACTUAL CHANGE IN YOUR SYSTEM OF VALUES. PEOPLE FACING THIS KIND OF CHOICE WILL UNDERGO EITHER A SOFTENING OR A HARDENING OF THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD CHEATING ON EXAMS, DEPENDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY DECIDED TO CHEAT. THE INTERESTING AND IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER IS THAT TWO PEOPLE ACTING IN TWO DIFFERENT WAYS COULD HAVE STARTED OUT WITH ALMOST IDENTICAL ATTITUDES TOWARD CHEATING. ONE CAME WITHIN AN INCH OF CHEATING BUT DECIDED TO RESIST, WHILE THE OTHER CAME WITHIN AN INCH OF RESISTING BUT DECIDED TO CHEAT. ONCE THEY HAD MADE THEIR DECISIONS, HOWEVER, THEIR ATTITUDES TOWARD CHEATING WOULD DIVERGE SHARPLY AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THEIR ACTIONS.

Dissonance Reduction and Personal Values (Mills, 1958)
Measured 6th graders attitudes about cheating Gave opportunity to cheat in a game Easy to cheat Cheating almost necessary to win Believed cheating could not be detected Judson Mills (1958) measured the attitudes of sixth graders toward cheating. He then had them participate in a competitive exam, with prizes awarded to the winners. The situation was arranged so that it was almost impossible to win without cheating. Mills made it easy for the children to cheat and created the illusion that they could not be detected. The next day, children who had cheated became more lenient toward cheating, and those who had resisted the temptation to cheat adopted a harsher attitude.

Dissonance Reduction and Personal Values (Mills, 1958)
Cheaters Became more lenient toward cheating Noncheaters Became less lenient toward cheating Judson Mills (1958) measured the attitudes of sixth graders toward cheating. He then had them participate in a competitive exam, with prizes awarded to the winners. The situation was arranged so that it was almost impossible to win without cheating. Mills made it easy for the children to cheat and created the illusion that they could not be detected. The next day, children who had cheated became more lenient toward cheating, and those who had resisted the temptation to cheat adopted a harsher attitude.

Dissonance, Culture, and the Brain
Dissonant information Reasoning circuits of brain shut down Dissonance is reduced Emotion circuits activated Primates also show changes in what is valued after making a decision As Western put it, people twirl the “cognitive kaleidoscope” until the pieces fall into the pattern they want to see, and then the brain repays them by activating circuits involved in pleasure—not unlike, he added, what addicts feel when they get a fix. When monkeys and chimps are placed in a decision making situation, (having to choose between different-colored M&Ms instead of kitchen appliances, they later reduced their preference for the color of M&Ms they had not chosen (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007; see also West et al., 2010). Among primates, this research suggests, it has been of evolutionary benefit to stick with a decision once made.

Dissonance and Culture
Process of dissonance reduction Culturally universal Content of dissonance reduction Cultural differences What thoughts are added, changed differ by culture We can find dissonance operating in almost every part of the world (e.g., Beauvois & Joule, 1996; Imada & Kitayama, 2010; Sakai, 1999), but it does not always take the same form and the content of the cognitions that produce it may differ across cultures. In “collectivist” societies, where the needs of the group matter more than the needs of the individual, dissonance-reducing behavior might be less prevalent, at least on the surface (Triandis, 1995).

Justifying Your Effort
Example Suppose you expend a great deal of effort to get into a particular club and it turns out to be a totally worthless organization How would you reduce this dissonance? How would you justify your behavior? Most people are willing to work hard to get something they really want. If you are really interested in pursuing a particular career, you are likely to go the extra mile to get it. You’ll probably study hard to meet graduate school entrance requirements, study some more for graduate school admissions exams, and submit to a series of stressful interviews

The harsh training required to become a marine will increase the recruits’ feelings of cohesiveness and their pride in the corps. Source: moodboard/Fotolia

Justifying Your Effort
People may interpret ambiguities in a positive way when it helps to justify effort Even the most boring people and trivial clubs have some redeeming qualities. Activities and behaviors are open to a variety of interpretations. If we are motivated to see the best in people and things, we will tend to interpret these ambiguities in a positive way. Justification of Effort The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain.

Effort Justification (Aronson and Mills, 1959)
Cover story College students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex Aronson and Mills (1959) explored the link between effort and dissonance reduction. In their experiment, college students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. To be admitted to the group, they volunteered to go through a screening procedure. Each participant was then allowed to listen in on a discussion being conducted by the members of the group they would be joining. Although they were led to believe that the discussion was live, they actually heard a prerecorded tape. The taped discussion was arranged so that it was as dull and bombastic as possible. After the discussion was over, each participant was asked to rate it in terms of how much he or she liked it, how interesting it was, how intelligent the participants were, and so forth.

IV Severity of group initiation 1/3 participants extremely demanding & unpleasant initiation 1/3  mildly unpleasant 1/3  admitted to group without any initiation DV Liking of group after admitted Aronson and Mills (1959) explored the link between effort and dissonance reduction. In their experiment, college students volunteered to join a group that would be meeting regularly to discuss various aspects of the psychology of sex. To be admitted to the group, they volunteered to go through a screening procedure. Each participant was then allowed to listen in on a discussion being conducted by the members of the group they would be joining. Although they were led to believe that the discussion was live, they actually heard a prerecorded tape. The taped discussion was arranged so that it was as dull and bombastic as possible. After the discussion was over, each participant was asked to rate it in terms of how much he or she liked it, how interesting it was, how intelligent the participants were, and so forth.

Mild initiation or no effort  less liking of group Severe initiation  more liking of group Participants who underwent little or no effort to get into the group regretted that they had agreed to participate. Participants who went through a severe initiation, however, convinced themselves that the same discussion was a worthwhile experience. Similar results have been obtained by other researchers in comparable circumstances (e.g., Cooper, 1980; Gerard & Mathewson, 1966).

Participants who underwent little or no effort to get into the group regretted that they had agreed to participate. Participants who went through a severe initiation, however, convinced themselves that the same discussion was a worthwhile experience. Similar results have been obtained by other researchers in comparable circumstances (e.g., Cooper, 1980; Gerard & Mathewson, 1966). Figure 6.3 The Justification of Effort The more effort we put into becoming members of a group, and the tougher the initiation, the more we will like the group we have just joined—even if it turns out to be a dud. (Adapted from Aronson & Mills, 1959.)

Hazing Video Click on the screenshot to watch a video on the topic of hazing. While hazing may increase affiliation with a group, it can also be dangerous. Back to Directory

The Psychology of Insufficient Justification
Example If you tell a friend that you like her ugly dress very much, do you experience much dissonance? Many thoughts are consonant (consistent) with having told lie E.g., it is important not to cause pain to people, not hurt feelings

Believing it is important not to cause pain to people you like provides ample external justification for having told lie External Justification A reason or an explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual. E.g., in order to receive a large reward or avoid a severe punishment.

What if there is no good external justification for lying?

Internal Justification The reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself. E.g., one’s attitude or behavior

If there is insufficient external justification for counterattitudinal advocacy, the attempt to reduce dissonance may result in attitude change! When we engage in counterattitudinal advocacy with little external justification, that is, without being motivated by something outside of ourselves, what we believe begins to look more and more like the lie we told. Counterattitudinal Advocacy Stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one’s private belief or attitude.

External Justification Video
Click on the screenshot to watch an example of how a woman uses external justification to explain why she engaged in counterattitudinal advocacy. Back to Directory

Festinger and Carlsmith (1958)
Cover story The effect of “interest instructions” on performance on a boring task Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959) induced college student volunteers to spend an hour performing boring and repetitive tasks. Half of them were offered $20 (large external justification) to tell the next volunteer it was very interesting while the others were offered only $1 (small external justification) for lying.

IV = $ for telling a lie $ large external justification  “sufficient” $ 1.00, small external justification  “insufficient” control no $, no lie DV = enjoyment of the task Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith (1959) induced college student volunteers to spend an hour performing boring and repetitive tasks. Half of them were offered $20 (large external justification) to tell the next volunteer it was very interesting while the others were offered only $1 (small external justification) for lying.

Students paid $20 for lying—for saying that the tasks had been enjoyable Rated the task as dull and boring $20 was sufficient external justification for lying $20 reduced dissonance between positive view of self (honest person) & behavior (lying) Lied because was paid to do so

Students paid only $1 for lying (saying the boring task was fun) Rated the task as significantly more enjoyable External justification was insufficient Reduced dissonance via internal justification Changed attitude about task Believed the lie they told In a similar experiment, researchers approached college students who initially believed that marijuana was harmful and induced them to compose and recite a videotaped speech favoring its use and legalization (Nel, Helmreich, & Aronson, 1969). Some were offered large incentives; others were offered small incentives. Again, the findings were clear: The smaller the incentive, the greater the softening of the attitude toward the use and legalization of marijuana.

Punishment and Self-Persuasion
If threat of punishment for engaging in a forbidden behavior is severe There is sufficient external justification for refraining from behavior If punishment is less severe There is insufficient external justification Creates greater need for internal justification Change attitudes via self-persuasion Does harsh punishment teach adults to want to obey the speed limit? Does it teach youngsters to value honest behavior? Apparently all it teaches us is to try to avoid getting caught. When the child is refraining from doing something he wants to do and while he does have some justification for not doing it, he lacks complete justification. In this situation, he continues to experience dissonance. Therefore, the child must find another way to justify the fact that he is not aggressing against his kid brother.

Insufficient Punishment The dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individuals’ devaluing the forbidden activity or object. .

When external justification for resisting an object or activity is insufficient: Dissonance is aroused Reduce dissonance by Self-persuasion E.g., devaluing forbidden activity or object

Parents can intervene to stop one sibling from tormenting another right at the moment of the incident, but what might they do to make it less likely to happen in the future? Source: Shannon Fagan/The Image Bank/Getty Images

Forbidden Toy Study (Aronson and Carlsmith 1963)
Children rated the attractiveness of toys, then were forbidden to play with toy they found most attractive IV = Severity of threatened punishment ½ children threat of mild punishment if they disobeyed & played with toy ½ children  threat of severe punishment DV = Rating of toy attractiveness Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) asked each child to rate the attractiveness of several toys. An experimenter then pointed to a toy that the child considered among the most attractive and told the child that he or she was not allowed to play with it. Half the children were threatened with mild punishment if they disobeyed; the other half were threatened with severe punishment. When the experimenter left the room for a few minutes, none of the children played with the forbidden toy.

Threat of severe punishment Forbidden toy remained highly attractive No change in attitude Had sufficient external justification for resisting toy Aronson and Carlsmith (1963): When the experimenter returned, the children who had received a severe threat continued to rate the forbidden toy as highly desirable or more desirable than they had before the threat. The children in the mild threat condition needed internal justification to reduce their dissonance. They convinced themselves the reason they had not played with the toy was that they did not really like it. They rated the forbidden toy as less attractive than they had when the experiment began.

Threat of mild punishment Forbidden toy was rated as less attractive External justification was insufficient Resolved dissonance through internal justification Change attitude about toy Aronson and Carlsmith (1963): When the experimenter returned, the children who had received a severe threat continued to rate the forbidden toy as highly desirable or more desirable than they had before the threat. The children in the mild threat condition needed internal justification to reduce their dissonance. They convinced themselves the reason they had not played with the toy was that they did not really like it. They rated the forbidden toy as less attractive than they had when the experiment began.

To test the long-lasting effects of attitudes that result from self-justification, Jonathan Freedman (1965) replicated Aronson and Carlsmith’s (1963) forbidden toy experiment. A single mild threat was still very effective several weeks later; the severe threat was not. The overwhelming majority of the children who had been mildly threatened for playing with a terrific toy decided, on their own, not to play with it, even when given the chance several weeks later; the majority of the children who had been severely threatened played with the forbidden toy as soon as they could (Freedman, 1965). Remember these findings when you become a parent! Parents who use punishment to encourage their children to adopt desirable values should keep the punishment mild—barely enough to produce a change in behavior—and the values will follow. Figure 6.4 The Forbidden Toy Experiment Children who had received a threat of mild punishment were far less likely to play with a forbidden toy (orange bar) than children who had received a threat of severe punishment (blue bar). Those given a mild threat had to provide their own justification by devaluing the attractiveness of the toy (“I didn’t want to play with it anyhow”). The resulting self-persuasion lasted for weeks. (Based on data in Freedman, 1965.)

A long-lasting form of attitude change that results from attempts at self-justification. If you want someone to do something or not do something only once, the most effective strategy would be to promise a large reward or threaten severe punishment. But if you want someone to become committed to an attitude or behavior, the smaller the reward or punishment that will lead to momentary compliance, the greater the eventual change will be and therefore the more permanent. Large rewards and severe punishments, as strong external justifications, encourage compliance but prevent real attitude change.

If you want someone to do something or not do something only once, the most effective strategy would be to promise a large reward or threaten severe punishment. But if you want someone to become committed to an attitude or behavior, the smaller the reward or punishment that will lead to momentary compliance, the greater the eventual change will be and therefore the more permanent. Large rewards and severe punishments, as strong external justifications, encourage compliance but prevent real attitude change. Figure 6.5 External versus Internal Justification As this graphic summarizes, insufficient punishment or reward leads to self-justification, which in turn leads to self-persuasion and lasting change. Larger rewards or punishments may produce temporary compliance, which rarely lasts.

The Hypocrisy Paradigm
Induce hypocrisy Make person aware of conflict between Attitudes Behavior Hypocrisy creates dissonance Reduce dissonance by changing behavior E.g., attitudes about condoms and use of condoms During the 1990s, Elliot Aronson and his students asked two groups of college students to compose a speech describing the dangers of AIDS and advocating the use of condoms every time a person has sex. Participants who made a video for high school students after the experimenter got them to think about their own failure to use condoms experienced high dissonance. They were made aware of their own hypocrisy: They had to deal with the fact that that they were preaching behavior that they themselves were not practicing. (Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991; Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994)

To find out if the results were long-lasting, the researchers phoned the students several months after the experiment and found that the effects held up. People in the hypocrisy condition—the students who would have felt the most cognitive dissonance—reported far greater use of condoms than those in the control conditions. Figure 6.6 The Hypocrisy Paradigm People who are made mindful of their hypocrisy (blue bars)—in this study, being made aware of the discrepancy between knowing that condoms prevent AIDS and other STDs but not using condoms themselves—begin to practice what they preach. Here, more of them bought condoms, buying more condoms than did students in other conditions—those who were simply given information about the dangers of AIDS, or who promised to buy them, or who were made aware that they weren’t using them. (Adapted from Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994.)

The Hypocrisy Paradigm
Students in the hypocrisy condition were subsequently more likely to buy condoms than students in any of the other conditions. To find out if the results were long-lasting, the researchers phoned the students several months after the experiment and found that the effects held up. People in the hypocrisy condition—the students who would have felt the most cognitive dissonance—reported far greater use of condoms than those in the control conditions.

Justifying Acts of Kindness
Dissonance theory predicts that when we dislike someone, if we do them a favor, we will like them more Behavior is dissonant with attitude Change attitude about person to resolve dissonance “The Ben Franklin Effect” Ben Franklin reported using this. After he borrowed a book from a political opponent, the other politician became more civil toward him. Franklin: I did not aim at gaining his favour by paying any servile respect to him but, after some time, took this other method. Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce and curious book I wrote a note to him expressing my desire of perusing that book and requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it immediately and I returned it in about a week with another note expressing strongly my sense of the favour. When we next met in the House he spoke to me (which he had never done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on all occasions, so that we became great friends and our friendship continued to his death. This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, “He that has once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another than he whom you yourself have obliged.” (Franklin, 1868/1900, pp. 216–217)

Figure 6.7 The Justification of Kindness If we have done someone a personal favor (blue bar), we are likely to feel more positively toward that person than if we don’t do the favor (orange bar) or do the favor because of an impersonal request (yellow bar). (Based on data in Jecker & Landy, 1969.)

Justifying Cruelty Cruel behavior is dissonant with view of self as a decent human being Resolve dissonance by changing thoughts about victim Davis and Jones (1960) Participants told a young man (confederate) they thought he was shallow, untrustworthy, boring. If we harm someone, this creates dissonance between what we did (inflict pain on another person) and our view of ourselves as a decent person. To resolve the dissonance, we may come to hate our victim and engage in dehumanization. By convincing ourselves that our victim is less than human, we reduce the dissonance. Davis and Jones (1960) had participants tell a young man (the researchers' confederate) they thought he was shallow, untrustworthy, boring. After the fact, the participants convinced themselves they didn't like the victim of their cruelty. After saying things they knew were certain to hurt him, they convinced themselves that he deserved to be hurt.

Justifying Cruelty Participants convinced themselves
They didn't like the victim He deserved to be hurt If we harm someone, this creates dissonance between what we did (inflict pain on another person) and our view of ourselves as a decent person. To resolve the dissonance, we may come to hate our victim and engage in dehumanization. By convincing ourselves that our victim is less than human, we reduce the dissonance. Davis and Jones (1960) had participants tell a young man (the researchers' confederate) they thought he was shallow, untrustworthy, boring. After the fact, the participants convinced themselves they didn't like the victim of their cruelty. After saying things they knew were certain to hurt him, they convinced themselves that he deserved to be hurt.

The American guards at Iraq’s Abu Ghraib prison treated their prisoners with a casual brutality that scandalized the world. What does dissonance theory predict about the consequences for the guards of dehumanizing the enemy? Source: HO/AFP/GETTY IMAGES/Newscom

Dissonance and the Iraq War
President Bush’s decision to initiate a “preemptive” war against Iraq was dissonant with: The fact that Iraq not involved in 9/11 attack on USA Iraq not an immediate threat to USA President George W. Bush wanted to believe that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) that posed a threat to Americans. Bush and his advisors’ interpretation of CIA reports provided the justification to launch a preemptive war.

To resolve dissonance Search for evidence consonant with decision to start war Try to find WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) However, WMD not found Dissonance reduction unsuccessful As the months dragged on and still no WMD were found they continued to assert that they would find them. Why? Because they were experiencing enormous dissonance. They had to believe they would find them. Finally, it was officially concluded that there were no WMD.

Resolve dissonance by adding cognitions Change reason (justification) for war Operation “Iraqi Freedom” Instead of preemptive strike to protect USA from WMD How did President Bush and his staff reduce dissonance? By adding new cognitions to justify the war: Suddenly the U.S. mission was to liberate the nation from a cruel dictator and give the Iraqi people the blessings of democratic institutions.

These athletes blew a big lead and lost the game
These athletes blew a big lead and lost the game. Will they make excuses, or will they learn from their mistakes? Source: Jose Carlos Fajardo/MCT/Newscom

Summary and Review Cognitive Dissonance Self-Justification
Self-affirmation and self-esteem Post-decision dissonance Self-Justification Justification of Effort Insufficient and sufficient external justification Hypocrisy Paradigm Dissonance, Kindness, and Cruelty To recap, this chapter focuses on the human need to justify actions. More specifically, a major focus of this unit was cognitive dissonance. The reasons why dissonance occurs were considered along with its implications for decision making, justification of effort, attitude change, and interpersonal relationships. The roles of counterattitudinal advocacy and insufficient external justification in producing dissonance were emphasized. The focus of the next chapter is attitude change.

Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Chapter 6 The Need to Justify Our Actions:"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback