Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Perception Theory

Topic: Cognitive Dissonance
- Focus on the power of inconsistency, motivational and cognitive aspects
Lecturer: Prof. Jeremy Cone
Course: PSYC 242, Lecture 15

Example of a personal experience stated by an individual:
- Quote: "I had the feeling that someone was trying to get my attention. Without knowing why, I picked up a pencil and a pad that were lying on the table near my bed."
- Individual felt compelled to write without clear understanding.
Following Quote:
- Quote: "My hand began to write in another handwriting. I looked at the handwriting and it was strangely familiar, but I knew it was not my own. I realized that somebody else was using my hand."
- Suggests an experience of dissociation or influence from external sources.

A case study involving uncanny belief systems:
- Details: Mrs. Marian Keech, a suburban housewife, declares that messages from higher beings warn about an impending flood on December 21, 1954.
- Claim: The messages are communicated through automatic writing from beings on the planet "Clarion" who allegedly observe earthly conditions.
- Predicts massive geological shifts leading to catastrophic events across the country.

Two messages emphasizing an impending event and expectations on how to prepare for the arrival of a flying saucer:
- The notion of being chosen and needing to forget those who do not join.
- Instructions for when the time arrives, highlighting secrecy and obedience in waiting for further instructions.

Cognition #1: Individuals committed resources (e.g., quit jobs, donated money) in belief of a prophetic event.
Cognition #2: The realization that the event did not occur leads to dissonance.
Resolutions to Dissonance:
- Abandonment of Group: Some individuals distanced themselves from the once held beliefs and community.
- Denial of Reality: Another method noted was just pretending the event had not been predicted.
- Convincing Others: Efforts to promote belief systems to retain meaning in the belief.

Developed by Leon Festinger in the 1950s and 1960s.
Fundamental principles:
- Individuals seek consistency between cognitions (thoughts) and behaviors.
- Inconsistency leads to an uncomfortable state termed "cognitive dissonance," necessitating a resolution.
Key Strategy for Resolution: Attitude change; typically involves shifting one's beliefs to align with behavior after the action has already been taken.

Three Key Methods to Induce Dissonance:
1. Induced Compliance
2. Effort Justification
3. Post-Choice Satisfaction

Example of Dissonance Induction through Task Enjoyment:
- Cognition #1: Disdain for a boring experiment.
- Cognition/Behavior #2: Representing the task as fun to another participant.
- Resolution: Participants re-evaluated the task positively due to the dissonance created.
- Experimental Evidence: Results from Festinger & Carlsmith's (1959) study showed variations in reported enjoyment based on compensation amount (e.g., $1 vs. $20).

Method of exploring children's behavior in response to threats about playing with toys (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963).
- Mild Threat: Minor consequences for play lead to moderate liking of toys.
- Severe Threat: Greater consequences lead to reduced liking for forbidden toys.
Data on toy ratings demonstrated:
- Children’s attraction to forbidden toys decreased significantly under severe threat conditions.

Examining commitment post painful initiation processes:
- Findings: People would rate discussion quality negatively if painful initiation preceded it, thereby creating dissonance which they would resolve by enhancing the perceived value of their group membership.
- Example of Results: Ratings of discussion quality varied based on levels of embarrassment during participation (Aronson & Mills, 1959).

Study by Brehm (1956) highlighting how decisions magnify positive views of chosen options and negative aspects of alternatives:
- Cognition #1: Choosing a college or option prompts comparison with alternatives.
- Strategies employed to cope with dissonance arise, such as fostering positivity towards the chosen option.
- Outcomes are influenced by independent assessments post-choice, which show preference towards chosen alternatives.

Four attributes contributing to high motivation to resolve inconsistency include:
1. Public visibility of the choice.
2. Choices freely made (no coercion).
3. Consequentiality of the choice (significant outcomes involved).
4. Foreseeability of the outcomes (predictable consequences).

An alternative framework introduced to understand attitude change:
- Suggests individuals infer own beliefs from their actions like an observer would deduce another’s behavior.
Critical insights:
- People form attitudes in contexts where they lack clear internal cues, effectively becoming observers of their behaviors to crystallize their states of mind.

Key Differences:
- Cognitive Dissonance involves motivational discomfort due to conflicting beliefs.
- Self-Perception posits that individuals evaluate their attitudes based on observed behaviors without the discomfort framework.
Bem's Reinterpretation of Dissonance Findings:
- Liking increases in low-justification contexts (e.g., $1 task).
- Lack of justification elicits cognitive evaluation; i.e., participants infer liking to explain their actions.

Understanding Cognitive Dissonance:
- Central questions and takeaways encompass:
- Definition and explanation of cognitive dissonance theory.
- Roles of self-perception theory and differences therein.
- Application of theories to explain observed behaviors in experimental environments.
- Implications of understanding dissonance and perceptions on choices and behaviors.