Chapter 7: Cognitive dissonance & persuasion

Cognitive dissonance

Feeling of discomfort caused by holding two conflicting cognitions

Motivates change in cognition or behavior to reduce conflict

• Vote

• Decide all politicians are the same

Ex. Simpson’s video example

Simpson’s example: Does Homer experience cognitive dissonance? What about Lisa (his daughter) Why?

Homer did some calculation and think that the world will end in a week

→ Everyone is convinced

→ Everyone went to this cliff

→ Nothing happened

→ Lisa didn’t believe in her dad in the first place, but went with him anyway

Lisa’s initial cognition was that she didn’t believe in her dad, but she went anyways cuz her family made her do that.

→ Cognition did NOT create conflict, so Lisa did NOT have a cognitive dissonance (NO ATTITUDE CHANGE)

This shows importance of external justification (parents dragging u)

→ Lisa did not need to reduce cognitive dissonance

No cognitive dissonance

When you don’t have to justify your 2 beliefs. When you have good reasons that you’re forced to do smth (external justification)

When Prophecy Fails (Festinger et al., 1956)

News article about a UFO cult preparing for the imminent end of the world

Festinger infiltrates group

4.45 AM Still no visitor. Leader receives message that the cataclysm has been called off. → believes that God rescued the world

Evaluate cult members

• Immediate responses were that Cult members are crazy, but they were surrounded by ppl who had the same beliefs

• But they might have had cognitive dissonance

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) $1 vs. $20

Both conditions had to do the repetitive boring task

→ They were given either $1 or $20 for telling the lie that the task was fun and enjoyable

→ Participants paid $1 to lie rated the task as more enjoyable than those paid $20

Conclusion:

The $20 group had a strong external justification for lying (they got paid a lot, “it’s worth lying”). No need to change their beliefs → No dissonance.

The $1 group had insufficient justification for lying. $1 is not worth lying → compensated this by slowly changing attitude and reported feeling enjoyable with the task → cognitive dissonance

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)

Central route (“slow”) and peripheral route (“slow”)

Central route

Slow

Possible persuasion (Depending on quality of topic-revelant information in message

Compelling arguments

Peripheral route

Fast

Possible persuasion (Depending on superficial features of the message or its source)

Communicate attributes

• Attractive

• Expert

• Famous

• Ex. Using Jungkook to promote Calvin Klein instead of talking about what makes Calvin Klein’s so good, what they’re made of, how comfortable they are

What matters the most to be successfully persuaded

Disposition and context affects the ability and motivation for effortful cognition → how successfully persuaded

Personal relevance matters the most

Fast thinking

Automatic, spontaneous, impulsive, emotional, associative

Slow thinking

Effort, logical, deliberate, concentration, computation, reasoning, self-critical

Petty et al., 1981: Personal relevance & quality of argument

Effect of argument strength is especially stronger in high personal relevance

Petty et al., 1981: Personal relevance vs. expertise

Effect of source expertise is much stronger in personal relevance situations.

Petty et al., 1981: Summary on personal relevance

When high personal relevance (Slow thinking): Strong argument matters more than expertise in persuasion

When low relevance (Fast thinking): Expertise matters more strong argument in persuasion

Some other things that affect the “route” to persuasion

Preference

Time pressure

Emotional state

Anything that affects cognitive capacity. Ex. tired, distracted

Festinger (1962): Dissonance is uncomfortable, so how do ppl reduce it?

• Changing their beliefs ("I guess the other toy wasn’t that great.")

• Changing their behavior

• Distorting perception ("Maybe it wasn’t really an emergency.")

Dissonance reduction is a key motivation behind attitude and belief changes.

Festinger (1962): Consequences of Making a Decision

• The rejected option had attractive qualities.

• The chosen option had unattractive qualities.

To reduce dissonance:

• People increase liking for the chosen option.

• People decrease liking for the rejected option.

High school girls rated 12 records, chose one, then rerated all records.

After choosing, they rated their selected record higher and rejected one lower.

Important finding: Dissonance reduction happened only when the choice was final and not reversible.

Festinger (1962): Lying for Small vs. Large Reward

If you lie for a small reward, you experience high dissonance ("I lied, but for so little!") and change your attitude to justify the lie ("Maybe it wasn't really a lie.").

If you lie for a large reward, there's less dissonance because you can blame the reward ("I did it for the money.").

Festinger (1962): Temptation and Forbidden Toys

Children were forbidden to play with a highly attractive toy:

• Mild threat condition: "Don't play with it or I'll be a little annoyed."

• Severe threat condition: "Don't play with it or I'll be very angry."

Results:

• Children under mild threat later devalued the toy ("It wasn’t that great"), reducing dissonance → effective

• Children under severe threat still found the toy attractive — because the severe external threat justified their behavior, so no internal attitude change was needed.

Real-world applications of cognitive dissonance

Marketing (justifying purchases)

Politics (justifying votes)

Parenting (how to enforce rules without backlash)

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — liking

People are more likely to comply with requests from those they like.

Factors that enhance liking:

• Physical attractiveness (people perceive attractive individuals as more persuasive).

• Similarity (we like people who are similar to us).

• Perceived liking.

• Cooperation (working together builds liking).

• Example: Tupperware parties rely on the host's likability more than the product's quality

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — Reciprocation

• Small gifts or favors create a sense of indebtedness → persuade

• Door-in-the-face: Large favor → declined → much smaller favor → persuaded

Example:

• A waiter giving a free mint at the end of a meal increases tips.

• Charities increase donations by mailing free gifts (e.g., personalized address labels)

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — Consistency

People prefer to act in ways that are consistent with their past behavior.

Once someone makes a commitment, they are likely to follow through.

Example:

A restaurant reduced no-shows from 30% to 10% by asking customers, "Will you call if you need to cancel?" instead of just telling them to call.

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — Scarcity

People perceive rare or limited items as more valuable (handmade, limited time offers)

Example:

• Nightclubs create long waiting lines to make entry seem more desirable.

• Airlines advertise "last few seats remaining" to push people to book flights.

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — Social validation

People look to others to decide how to act, especially in uncertain situations.

Example:

• Long list of donor names lead to more donation

• Bartenders seed tip jars with money to make tipping seem like the norm.

Cialdini & Goldstein (2002): Six principles of persuasion — Authority

People are more likely to follow experts or authoritative figures.

Example:

• Customers trust restaurant reviews from food critics more than advertisements.

• Waiters can increase tips by making recommendations that seem unbiased (e.g., saying, "That dish isn’t great tonight, but I recommend these two instead.")

Think back to the Simpsons episode you analyzed in terms of cognitive dissonance theory, and focus on Lisa Simpson. Lisa’s experience was most similar to the experience of participants in which of the following experimental conditions? (Be sure to think about this conceptually, in terms of the theory, not in terms of the surface details.)

a) Participants who received $1 to tell a lie in Festinger & Carlsmith’s study

b) Participants who received $20 to tell a lie in Festinger & Carlsmith’s study

c) Participants who received only the record they chose in Jecker’s study

d) Both b and c

e) Both a and c

b) Participants who received $20 to tell a lie in Festinger & Carlsmith's study.

They didn’t experience cognitive dissonance because they had sufficient justification for their actions.

c) was wrong because participants received the unattractive records and not the attractive ones, so they changed attitude to like it → experience cognitive dissonance

Christie and Debbie share custody of their 11 year-old daughter Ella, who just got her first smartphone and has been spending a lot of time on it. Christie wants Ella to put her phone away during dinner, and she wants Ella to stick with this desired behavior even on nights when Christie isn’t around. Christie knows you’ve been taking social psychology, so she asks you for advice about whether and how to punish Ella for using the phone at dinner on nights when she is with Ella. Based on Festinger’s article that you read this week, what would you recommend that Christie do?

a) Do not threaten to punish Ella at all—this will just create reactance and make her more likely to rebel in the long term.

b) Tell Ella that if she uses her phone during dinner, she will have to do the dishes afterward, which is the mildest form of punishment that will get Ella to put the phone away during dinners with Christie.

c) Tell Ella that if she uses her phone during dinner, she will have to do the dishes for a whole month, which is a big punishment that will show Ella that Christie is very serious about putting phones away.

d) Take Ella’s phone away during dinner so that there is no temptation for Ella to use it.

e) All of these strategies would be about equally effective in helping Ella stick with the desired behaviour.

b) because mild threat → creates cognitive dissonance and encourages compliance with the desired behavior.

Severe threat creates strong external justification → No cognitive dissonance and not effective

To encourage people to buy electric vehicles (EVs), the government now offers a subsidy to help condo buildings in Vancouver install electric vehicle chargers (which makes owning an EV much more feasible).

A large apartment building on Main Street just had chargers installed, so many residents are considering replacing their gas guzzlers with EVs.

A few blocks away, another building on 16th avenue is planning to have chargers installed in 5-7 years.

Meanwhile, as another way of encouraging EV purchases, the city government plans to distribute flyers about the advantages of buying EV’s in all the buildings. Based on this model, what would you recommend the government do in order to make its flyers as effective as possible?

a) Strategy A: They government should fill the flyer with detailed, accurate, and compelling information about the advantages of owning an EV.

b) Strategy B: The government should fill the flyer with photos of popular local celebrities who own EV’s, posing happily with their cars.

c) The government should use Strategy A for buildings like the one on Main Street and Strategy B for Buildings like the one on 16th Avenue.

d) The government should use Strategy A for buildings like the one on 16th avenue and Strategy B for Buildings like the one on Main St.

e) The government should not send out any flyers at this time

c) is correct.

Chargers are more relevant for Main St and less relevant for 16th Ave, more detail is better for Main St and flashy celebrities are better for 16th Ave.

Personal relevance means the central (slow) route will probably be more effective. No personal relevance means the peripheral (fast) route will probably be more effective.

On UBC’s Homecoming Day, you decide to approach alumni and ask them for donations. Which of the following strategies would Cialdini and Goldstein be LEAST likely to recommend you try?

a) Approach alumni who lived in the same first-year residence that you did, and take a few minutes to reminisce about your similar experiences in res. Then ask for a donation.

b) Approach alumni from the Class of 1980, and tell them they don’t look a day over 25. Then ask for a donation.

c) Offer them a free UBC bumper sticker that you and your friends designed. Then ask for a donation.

d) Approach alumni and have a friendly conversation for a while, and at the end, tell them how much you liked meeting them. Then ask for a donation.

e) Ask alumni for a $250 donation, and if they say no, ask for a $10 donation.

b) is the answer. Flattery is the least effective method to use before asking for donation

a) is increase similarity (liking)

c) is scarcity

d) is reciprocation

e) is door-in-the-face, pretty effective

After Festinger and Carlsmith conducted their famous study in which participants were paid to tell a lie, Arthur Cohen conducted a study in which participants wrote an essay for either $10, $5, $1, or 50 cents. What was the novel contribution made by Cohen’s study, compared to Festinger and Carlsmith’s study?

a) The study examined a novel context.

b) The study used different amounts of money.

c) The study tested a new conceptual hypothesis.

d) Both a and b.

e) All of the above.

d) Both a and b.