Notes on Cognitive Dissonance and the Theory of Planned Behavior
The Scientific Process
Science is a cumulative process that alternates between theories and hypotheses.
Theory: an organized set of principles that can be used to explain observed phenomena.
Hypothesis: a testable statement about the relationship between two or more variables.
Formulating hypotheses & theories: crucial for building knowledge; theories guide predictions, hypotheses test specific relationships, and findings feed back to refine theories.
Distinguishing colloquial vs. scientific use of the word theory:
Colloquial: a theory is often just an idea or guess.
Scientific: a theory is awarded after it has been tested and retested, used to predict future events, and has accounted for more data than competing ideas.
Karl Popper and Falsifiability
Sir Karl Popper (1902-1994) contributed to the philosophy of science.
Core idea: any genuine scientific theory includes criteria for disproof; falsifiability is essential.
A theory or hypothesis must be testable.
Ideas that are not falsifiable are NOT scientific.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)
Central idea: we want our cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, knowledge of our behaviour) to be consistent with one another.
Inconsistency among cognitions produces aversive arousal (dissonance).
Aversive arousal motivates attempts to eliminate it.
Example: “I know smoking causes cancer. I smoke a lot of cigarettes.”
Reducing Dissonance
Dissonance arises when there is a misalignment between attitudes/cognitions and behaviour.
Four main routes to reduce dissonance: 1) Change behaviour
Example: I smoke. I’m going to quit tomorrow.
Result: DISSONANCE reduces if behaviour changes.
2) Add consonant cognitionsExample: I smoke. Smoking is bad for one’s health. Add: Smoking keeps my weight down; Smoking makes me look cool.
3) Downplay importance of dissonant cognitionExample: I smoke. Smoking is bad for my health but I don’t care.
4) Seek information that denies the risksExample: I smoke. Smoking isn’t bad. That’s fake news from a corrupt health care system.
Post-decision Dissonance
When choosing between two equally attractive (or equally unattractive) alternatives, undesirable features of the chosen option and desirable features of the rejected option remain, creating dissonance.
Dissonance can be managed by upgrading the chosen alternative and downgrading the rejected one.
Post Decision Dissonance: Free Choice Paradigm (Brehm, 1956)
Procedure:
Participants (women) rated many consumer products.
They then chose one to take home.
The choice was between two options that were either similarly rated (difficult decision) or dissimilarly rated (easy decision).
After making a choice, ratings of all products were reassessed.
Post-decisional spreading of alternatives:
Chosen item increases in attractiveness; rejected item decreases in attractiveness following the decision.
Graphically represented as a shift in ratings for the chosen vs. rejected items.
Example depiction (as in the figure):
Easy vs. difficult choice shows the degree of spreading (values illustrated along a scale: 0.5, 0.25, -0.25, -0.5).
Effort Justification
Mode of dissonance induction: participants are led to believe they exerted tremendous effort for no particularly good reason.
Predicted outcome: participants justify expended effort.
Applications:
Used to explain why groups (e.g., fraternities/sororities, sports teams) use severe hazing rituals for new members.
Aronson & Mills (1959): sexual discussion group initiation study.
Effort Justification (Experiment Details)
Procedure:
Participants were asked to join a group that discussed sexual issues.
Initiation procedures varied: mild embarrassing, severe embarrassing, or no initiation (control).
After joining, participants found the group to be quite boring.
Graph: Interest in group after discussion
Axis labels indicate interest rating (ranging roughly from 60 to 100).
Initiation conditions: Control, Mild, Severe.
Result: Greater initiation severity generally associated with higher post-initiation interest in the group, illustrating justification of effort.
Insufficient Justification
Concept: it is not uncommon to lie to protect a friend’s feelings, or when the negative consequences of the truth outweigh the discomfort of telling a lie, etc.
Implication: we do not always experience dissonance when our bad behaviour is justified externally; but what about when we cannot justify our behaviour?
Classic experiment: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) – Insufficient justification paradigm
Design: Participants performed a dull task and were asked to tell the next participant that the task was enjoyable.
Conditions: No lie (control), $20, $1.
Predictions: When external rewards are small (insufficient justification), internal justification increases, producing dissonance and a shift in attitude toward the task.
Figure: Insufficient Justification (Figure 4-2)
Scale:
Dissonance: low to high (no dissonance, low dissonance, high dissonance)
Outcomes: The $1 condition yielded greater attitude change (higher internal justification) than the $20 condition or control, consistent with dissonance theory.
Source: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959).
Culture and Cognitive Dissonance
Individuals with an individualistic self-concept are more prone to dissonance after personal choices.
Collectivistic self-concept can lead to dissonance after choices made for the group.
The experience of dissonance can be shared across cultures, though its source may vary (personal vs. group-oriented reasons).
Dissonance Theory: Applications
Hypocrisy Paradigm:
Publicly advocate a socially desirable behavior, then recall times when one did not exhibit the behavior.
Fried & Aronson (1995) demonstrated that this increases subsequent engagement in the behavior (e.g., more likely to recycle, volunteer for environmental projects).
The Theory of Planned Behaviour (Ajzen & Fishbein)
Core components:
Attitude toward the behaviour: e.g., "I'm for physical fitness."
Subjective norms: e.g., "My neighbours seem to be jogging and going to the gym."
Perceived control: e.g., "I could easily do this."
These three factors shape behavioural intention, which in turn guides behaviour.
Diagrammatic summary (Ajzen, 1991/1985):
Attitude toward the behaviour, Subjective norms, and Perceived behavioural control together determine Behavioural Intention, which then guides Behaviour.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour highlights that many behaviours (sex, smoking, eating, substance and alcohol use) are difficult to control through rational, voluntary means alone.
Ajzen (1985) added perceived behavioural control to produce the theory of planned behaviour; it is one of the most cited theories in psychology.
Key points from the TPB diagram (Figure 4-1):
Attitude toward the behaviour: personal evaluation of performing the behaviour.
Subjective norms: perceived social pressures to perform or not perform the behaviour.
Perceived behavioural control: perceived ease or difficulty of performing the behaviour, akin to self-efficacy and controllability.
Intention: a proximal determinant of behaviour; stronger intentions predict higher likelihood of performing the behaviour.
Actual behaviour: influenced by intention and perceived behavioural control.
Connections to Previous Lectures and Real-World Relevance
Cognitive dissonance theory connects attitude change to moral and experiential reasoning, showing how people align beliefs with actions post-hoc.
The interaction between attitudes, social norms, and perceived control helps explain why some behaviors are difficult to change despite strong intentions (e.g., health-related behaviors).
Falsifiability underscores the importance of empirical testing and the demarcation between science and non-science.
The range of studies (Festinger, Aronson, Fried, Aronson, Brehm, Ajzen) illustrate how laboratory experiments can illuminate everyday phenomena (hypocrisy, initiation rituals, compelled compliance).
Formulas and Notation
Notation used in the material is primarily conceptual; the following are key expressions used in the notes:
Dissonance arises when not all cognitions align:
ext{Dissonance} > 0 ext{ when } C1 eq C2 ext{ or } C_3\dotsTheory of Planned Behaviour components determining intention:
Free Choice Paradigm revolves around choice difficulty and subsequent rating changes (post-decision spreading of alternatives):
Chosen item rating ↑, Rejected item rating ↓ after decision.
Experimental evidence figures referenced include:
Post-decisional spreading of alternatives (easy vs difficult choices) with ratings showing chosen item increasing in attractiveness and rejected item decreasing.
Insufficient justification: differences in attitude change across Control, $20, and $1 conditions, illustrating the role of external justification strength on internal attitude change.
Summary of Key Takeaways
The scientific enterprise requires hypotheses to be testable and theories to be falsifiable; this guards against non-scientific ideas.
Cognitive dissonance arises from inconsistencies among cognitions and motivates strategies to restore internal consistency.
People can reduce dissonance by changing behavior, adding consonant cognitions, downplaying importance, or seeking information that negates risks.
Post-decision dissonance shows that choosing between similar options leads to post-choice rationalization (spreading of alternatives).
Effort justification demonstrates that greater effort expended to join a group can increase liking for that group due to internal justification.
Insufficient justification experiments reveal how lack of external rewards can induce attitude change through internal justification.
Culture influences the form and source of dissonance, with individualistic vs collectivistic orientations shaping how people experience dissonance after choices.
The hypocrisy paradigm demonstrates how publicly promoting a behavior and later failing to act can enhance future engagement in that behavior.
The Theory of Planned Behaviour provides a comprehensive framework for predicting behaviour through attitudes, social norms, and perceived control, with intention mediating behaviour.
The material connects cognitive dissonance to practical domains (health behaviours, environmental actions) and underscores the ongoing dialogue between theory and empirical testing in psychology.