1. Ss perform very dull task, repeatedly. 2. Ss asked to inform next subject that the task is interesting. 3. Ss offered low pay ($1) or high pay ($20) to lie. 4. Ss later asked to rate how interesting they found the task. Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959 "Believing Own Lies" Which group experiences most dissonance? $1 $20 X Which group rates the task as more interesting? $1 $20 X Why? $1 = low justification  dissonance $20 = high justification  no dissonance

1. Child rates toys, including desirable "Robbie the Robot". 2. E. leaves room, tells child "don't play w' Robbie, and if you do:" a. Low threat: I will be a little annoyed with you. b. High threat: I will be very angry, and will do something. 3. Child returns to study later, new E., can play with any toy including R. the R. 4. Which child plays w' R the R? Low threat or high threat? Why? Low threatHigh threat X Low threat = under-justification  dissonance Why? Dissonance and Behavioral Control: Robbie the Robot Study Lepper, 1972

Dissonance Disrupts Behaviorism Premise of behaviorism: Punishments are negatively reinforcing. Question: What conditions produce more liking of neutral stims? Neutral Stimuli Dull discussion group Fill bin with spools Mediocre toys Reinforcement Embarrassment Low pay Punishment threat Dislike Liking Beh. PredictsCD Shows

Self Perception Theory Challenges Cog. Dissonance Cog. Dissonance Theory: Discordance btwn. actions and beliefs creates negative arousal. Hence, dissonance is motivational/affective Daryl Bem: No need to posit any underlying arousal. Could be purely self-perception. People evaluate own actions as they would others. NOTE: Harks back to "Symbolic Interactionism" No internal conflict or complex motives, just attributions based on self-observed behavior.

Testing Self-Perception Vs. Dissonance Bem & McConnell, 1970 Premise: We infer own attitudes from our most recent behavior. Beh. due to "insufficient justification", infer corresponding attitude. After new attitude adopted, old attitude will be forgotten. No "change in attitude" Instead earlier attitude "overwritten" by self-perceived new attitude. Method: Counter-Attitudinal Essay, low justification vs. high justification DV: Attitude recall Result: Which group better recalls initial attitude, low or high justification? High justification. Why? Saw selves voicing views under powerful external pressure. Views voiced under pressure probably not sincere.

Arousal as a Necessary Condition for Cog. Diss. and Attitude Change Cooper, Zanna, & Taves, 1978 Premise: Damn you Bem, it is arousal!!!! If arousal, then if arousal dampened, less CD; if arousal boosted, more CD "Attitudes will change following counter-attitudinal behavior if and only if arousal accompanies behavior." Method: Ss complete counter-attitudinal essay--"Should Richard Nixon be pardoned?" Either high-choice or low choice conditions. Before essay, as part of "separate study" Ss ingest pill. Told it is placebo but in actuality it is either: tranquilizer, placebo, amphetamine Predict: Attitude change in "high choice" but not if pill is _____________? Tranquilizer

Arousal as a Necessary Condition for Cog. Diss. and Attitude Change Cooper, Zanna, & Taves, 1978 Tranq'zer

Class 21: Self Affirmation

Name Calling, Compliance, and an Alternative Means to Dissonance Reduction Steele name-calling study: Most dissonance studies involve S seeing self behaving contrary to self-image. What if outside person did so? Method: Calls housewives in Utah (why Utah?) Housewives in one of four extp'l conditions 1. Relevant negative name: "you are not cooperative" 2. Relevant positive name: "you are cooperative" 3. Irrelevant negative name: "you are a bad driver" 4. No contact control group. DV: Compliance with food co-op request, to list all foods, 2 days later. According to Dissonance, which group should comply? X

Name Calling and Compliance Steele, 1985 What explains this result? Why didn't earlier CD research show similar result? Never checked!

The Role of the Self in Cognitive Dissonance Dissonance induced by: 1. Writing essays you don’t believe in. 2. Reading lurid sexual text in front of leering experimenter 3. Lying about interest value of boring task for just $ Breaking a stranger’s camera 5. Eating grasshoppers with minimal incentive 6. Waiting until 4:30 AM for space ship that never arrives Experientially, what do these situations have in common? Make people feel badly about themselves.

1. People have a basic need to maintain fundamental sense of self as worthy 2. After self worth has been threatened, people are motivated to restore general integrity, not simply correct the specific threat. 3. Motive to correct a specific threat is lessened after restoring general sense of worthiness. Principles of Self Affirmation Theory

Logic of Self Affirmation vs. Dissonance Fred is a smoker. Fred sees self as smart and sane. Smart, sane people don’t smoke. How can Fred reduce psychological threat? Rationalize "I watch diet, so I'll be OK" Change behavior "OK, I'm quitting" Boost self-worth "I just published an article on cognitive dissonance!" Cog. DissSelf-Affirm Y Y Y Y YN

Countering Dissonance by Affirming Values: Steele & Lui, 1981 Complete Poli/Econ Values Survey Low Justification (High Choice) High Justification (Low Choice) Hold Poli/ Econ Values No Attitude Change No Attitude Change Don’t Hold Poli/Econ Values Attitude Change No Attitude Change

Dissonance and Values Affirmation Steele & Lui, 1981 What explains this result? Why didn't earlier CD research show similar result? Never checked!

Dissonance and the Lab Coat Steele & Lui, 1983 Ss pre-identified: science oriented or not science oriented Ss rate record albums: can choose 5th or 6th favorite (choice cond) are given either 5th or 6th favorite (no-choice cond) While "ratings are reviewed", Ss go to "second study" Second study: wear lab coat / don't wear lab coat Ss return to Study 1, reveal "true attitudes" re. albums DV: Degree of attitude change regarding albums Not Sci. oriented Sci. oriented No Lab CoatLab Coat Attitude change No Attitude change

Dissonance and the Lab Coat Steele & Lui, 1983

Self Affirmation and the Need to Judge Others Lui & Steele, 1986 Econ/Political Values Oriented Not Econ/Political Values Oriented Helplessness Only Helplessness + Affirmation High Judging Low Judging Judging others is pleasurable. More likely to judge others when we feel less in control. Why? Would affirmation affect tendency to judge others? Why?

Self Affirmation and the Need to Judge Others Lui & Steele, 1986

Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000 Premise: People hold firmly to opinions, esp. those connected to core values. Would flexibility re. opinions relax if self-worth affirmed. (Why?) Method: Ss pre-selected on favoring/not favoring capital punishment. Ss also rank personal values "Sources of Validation" scale Ss told study concerns memory, Complete "Personal Memory Exercise": Affirmation Cond: Describe 3-4 instances where they upheld top source of validation (from S of V) scale Control Cond: List everything they ate last 48 hrs. Ss read & recall capital punish. essay opposed to their views DV: How favorably is anti-attitude essay evaluated?

Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000

Self Affirmation Questions 1. If one kind of self-insult (i.e., dissonant behavior, lack of control) can be redeemed by a very different kind of self-relevant behavior (i.e., recalling personal values, wearing a lab coat, cooperating with crazy survey) what does this say about the nature of the self? Is the self a unified whole or a conglomeration of parts? 2. How would self affirmation affect the tendency to self-blame following a tragedy over which one has objectively little control (like earthquake)? Why?