Social Psychology: Rationalization, Cognitive Dissonance, and Self-Perception Theories
Introduction to Rationalization and Cognitive Consistency
Conceptual Overview: The lecture focuses on how individuals rationalize the disconnect between their attitudes and behaviors. This is a continuation of the previous discussion on whether attitudes predict behavior.
Historical Context: Last week’s lecture included the study by Larkin, where a Chinese couple traveling across America was served by businesses whose stated policies and attitudes were anti-Chinese. This highlighted a significant disconnect between what people say (attitudes) and what they do (behavior).
Cognitive Consistency Theories: This is an umbrella term for theories suggesting that individuals have a powerful internal drive to justify or rationalize their behavior. The goal is to minimize inconsistencies between actions and thoughts to maintain internal harmony.
The Meat Paradox Example: A common example of cognitive inconsistency is the belief that "animal cruelty is wrong" while simultaneously finding meat "delicious." * The lecturer's own research involved taking participants to farms and showing videos to foster contact with animals, which led them to state they were less likely to consume meat. * However, when given vouchers for a local pub, the participants overwhelmingly chose meaty options when they believed they were not being observed, demonstrating that the behavior did not align with the newly stated attitude.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Leon Festinger)
Definition: Proposed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s, Cognitive Dissonance Theory states that inconsistencies among a person's thoughts, sentiments, and actions cause an aversive emotional state called "dissonance."
Restoring Consistency: This unpleasant state leads to psychological efforts to restore consistency. Dissonance can occur between two cognitions (thoughts) or between a cognition and a behavior.
Attitude Components: Cognitive dissonance relates to the three components of attitudes: * Cognitive Component: Thoughts and beliefs. * Affective Component: Feelings toward a particular thing. * Behavioral Component: Actions in relation to a particular thing.
High-Cost Decisions: Dissonance often occurs after making difficult decisions where pros and cons are not clear-cut. * Example: Choosing between a holiday in France or Italy. Once the choice is made (e.g., Italy), the individual uses mental effort to reduce dissonance by focusing on the positives of Italy and the negatives of France (the unchosen option). * Pre-decision Rationalization: Recent research suggests people start rationalizing even before a decision is finalized (e.g., thinking "I prefer Italian food anyway" while still undecided) to minimize future dissonance.
Effort Justification and the "Sweet Lemons" Effect
Effort Justification: This is the tendency to reduce dissonance by justifying time, effort, or money devoted to something that turns out to be disappointing or unpleasant.
Sweet Lemons Rationalization: Similar to the "sour grapes" concept, this is the idea that if you choose something (metaphorically, a lemon), you will convince yourself it is sweet to avoid looking foolish for the effort or choice made. * Pet Ownership: Owners may exaggerate the joys of having a pet while downplaying the negatives (e.g., costs) to justify the effort. * Parenting: Parents may focus on the joy children bring while ignoring the loss of personal time or the exhaustion at in the morning.
Aronson and Mills (1959) Study: * Female undergraduates underwent different levels of initiation to join a discussion group: No initiation (control), mild initiation, or severe initiation. * The group discussion was intentionally designed to be dull. * Results: Participants in the severe initiation condition rated the boring discussion much more favorably than those in the mild or control groups. They justified the unpleasant initiation by changing their attitude toward the group.
Induced (Forced) Compliance
Definition: Subtly compelling people to behave in ways inconsistent with their beliefs to create dissonance and induce attitude change.
Festinger and Carlsmith Peg-Twisting Study: * Participants performed an extremely dull task (twisting wooden pegs). * They were then asked to lie to the next participant, telling them the task was interesting. * Conditions: Participants were paid either dollar, dollars, or nothing (control). * Results: The group paid dollar rated the task as significantly more enjoyable than the group paid dollars. * Rationalization: The dollar group had a clear monetary justification for lying. The dollar group had "insufficient justification," so they reduced dissonance by convincing themselves the task was actually fun.
Conditions for Producing Dissonance
Core Sense of Self: Elliot Aronson argued that dissonance is most powerful when inconsistencies challenge one's core identity—specifically sense of rationality, morality, and self-worth.
Key Factors: Four factors determine if an inconsistency leads to dissonance: 1. Free Choice: If the behavior is coerced, no dissonance is felt. In a study by Linder, students paid to write an essay against their beliefs only changed their attitudes if they felt they had chosen to write it freely. 2. Insufficient Justification: If there is a strong external incentive (like being paid in the 1960s, equivalent to roughly today), the behavior is justified by the reward, and no attitude change occurs. If the reward is small (e.g., , equivalent to roughly dollars today), the person must rationalize the internal conflict. 3. Negative Consequences: Dissonance typically requires that the behavior results in harm or a negative outcome. If no one is affected by a lie, dissonance effects often disappear. 4. Foreseeability: Dissonance is greater if the negative consequences were foreseeable. * Example: Serving chicken satay to someone with a peanut allergy. If you didn't know about the allergy, dissonance is low. If you were told beforehand and forgot, dissonance is high.
Cooper’s Essay Study: Replicated the essay-writing study but told participants the essay would be shown to a committee deciding policy. This added "foreseeable negative consequences," which significantly increased the dissonance-driven attitude change.
Bem's Self-Perception Theory
Conceptual Focus: Proposed by Bem, this theory suggests that people don't have internal tension (dissonance); instead, they simply observe their own behavior and infer what their attitudes must be. * Example: "I eat a lot of pizza, therefore I must like pizza."
Attribution Process: Similar to how we judge others, we use self-attribution to understand ourselves. This is especially prevalent when our initial attitudes are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable.
Critique of Dissonance: Bem argued that the results of the Festinger and Carlsmith study were predictable. When he described the study to observers, they correctly predicted that the dollar group would rate the task more favorably because they wouldn't have a monetary reason to lie.
Arousal-Based Differences: * Cognitive Dissonance relies on the presence of physical, unpleasant arousal (evidence via skin conductance studies/EMGs shows that inconsistencies do produce physical responses). * Self-Perception Theory is a "cool," rational process without arousal.
Consensus: Both theories appear correct in different contexts: * Dissonance Theory applies when established, clear-cut attitudes are challenged. * Self-Perception Theory applies when attitudes are vague or less important.
System Justification Theory
Concept: Proposed by Jost and colleagues, this theory suggests people are motivated to see the existing sociopolitical system as fair and legitimate, even if it disadvantages them.
Rationalizing Injustice: It is psychologically easier to justify a system than to challenge it, as challenging it generates cognitive dissonance.
Examples: * Pay Inequity: Studies (Jost and Major) found some women reporting they deserved lower pay than men for the same work as a way to justify the system. * Economic Inequality: Low-income groups in the US may support the status quo rather than egalitarian policies to avoid the dissonance of admitting the system is unfair.
The Objects Don't Object: Rachel Calogero found that women who report high levels of self-objectification also report higher system justification and are less likely to engage in political activism.
Terror Management Theory (TMT)
Concept: This theory addresses the extreme anxiety humans feel regarding the inevitability of death.
Symbolic Immortality: To cope, people strive for "symbolic immortality" by preserving cultural worldviews, values, and legacies (e.g., children, institutions).
Mortality Salience: When people are reminded of their own mortality, they seek higher self-esteem and become more dedicated to their worldviews.
Green Book Study: Catholic participants reminded of death became more hostile toward out-groups (Jewish people) and more positive toward their in-group (other Catholics). Reminders of mortality increase commitment to the in-group and the punishment of rule-breakers.
Questions & Discussion
Referencing for Essays: Several students requested help with APA referencing for their essays.
Response: The lecturer attempted to show Google Scholar on the screen to demonstrate APA formatting. Due to technical issues with the computer/recording, the demonstration was postponed.
Conclusion: The lecturer promised to cover APA referencing in detail next week.
Next Week's Topic: The lecture will focus on relationships, including romantic relationships and other social ties.