Cognitive Dissonance and Attribution Theories Study Notes

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Origins of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

  • Initial Context:
    • A January 1954 magnitude 8.1 earthquake devastated the Himalayan region, affecting Nepal and India.
    • Residents of a neighbouring less-affected village experienced high levels of fear and anxiety.
    • Rumours emerged about an impending worse natural disaster.
    • Researchers like Leonard Festinger sought to understand the origin of these rumours.
  • Festinger's Explanation:
    • The rumours were driven by the population’s pre-existing anxiety and fear.
    • Individuals may alter or create beliefs to justify their emotional state.
  • Cognitive Dissonance Definition:
    • When individuals recognize they harbor two contradictory cognitions, they undergo cognitive dissonance, an unpleasant psychological tension.
    • Festinger predicted cognitive dissonance would occur if the anticipated event (disaster) does not happen.

Cognitive Structures: Consistent vs. Inconsistent Cognitions

  • Inconsistent Cognitions:
    • Cognitive Dissonance arises from contradictory beliefs or circumstances.
  • Consistent Cognitions:
    • Exist when beliefs logically support one another.
  • Potential Cognitions Related to Dissonance:
    • Cognition 1: Fear and Anxiety experienced.
    • Cognition 2: Belief in an impending disaster.
    • Cognition 3: Outcome of no disaster occurring.
  • Outcomes of Dissonance:
    • Cognitive Dissonance can lead to a change in cognition or the formation of an explanation for the lack of disaster.

Cult Example and Dissonance Reduction

  • Cult Belief Context:
    • A cult anticipated a catastrophic flood, claiming that only believers would be saved.
  • Response to Non-Occurrence:
    • When the expected flying saucer did not arrive, anxiety levels rose among members.
    • The leader claimed divine intervention had occurred due to the group’s goodness, adding a new cognition to alleviate dissonance.
  • Legitimacy from Social Support:
    • Additional cognitions often require social validation for acceptance.

Theoretical Concepts of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Cognitive Inconsistency:
    • Dissonance is born from contradictions between beliefs or beliefs against reality.
  • Cognition Types:
    • Consonant Cognitions: Elements where one belief logically stems from another.
    • Dissonant Cognitions: Elements lead to contrary expectations.
    • Irrelevant Elements: Elements with no relation to each other can introduce a third non-related element to establish a connection.
  • Dissonance Magnitude (Formula):
    • D∗=D/(D+C)D^* = D/(D+C)
    • Where:
      • $D^*$ - magnitude of dissonance
      • $D$ - sum of dissonant elements relevant to the element in question
      • $C$ - sum of consonant elements relevant to the element in question

Important Factors in Dissonance Reduction

  • Reduction depends on the importance of elements involved:
    • More significant dissonant elements result in a higher magnitude of dissonance.
    • More substantial consonant elements lead to a reduced magnitude of dissonance.
  • Human Response to Dissonance:
    • There’s inherent pressure to reduce cognitive dissonance, directly correlated with its magnitude.
  • Mechanisms of Resolution:
    • Simplest method is to convert a dissonant cognition into a consonant one.
    • Deciding which cognition to modify is based on:
    • The element’s resistance to change
    • Reinforcement through behaviours
    • Subjective perception of reality
    • When change isn't feasible, one can add consonant elements to minimize dissonance.

Cognitive Reframing

  • A method that reduces the significance of dissonant elements, thus alleviating resultant discomfort.
  • Statements Acknowledging Dissonance:
    • While recognizing risks in attitudes or behaviour, reframing them reduces the perceived severity.
  • Rationalization Credibility:
    • The trustworthiness of a rationalization decreases cognitive dissonance pressure.

Early Research and Tests of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Induced Compliance Study
  • Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Experiment:
    • Objective: To assess if lower monetary compensation could lead to greater job enjoyment.
    • Induced Compliance Paradigm: Participants perform tasks opposing their preferences under varying external pressures.
    • Findings reinforced that attitudes can be influenced by behaviour.
Free Choice Paradigm
  • Brehm's Study:
    • Adult women ranked household items.
    • After selection where choices were difficult, participants reevaluated and preferred their initial choice to lessen dissonance.

Reactance Theory and Self Consistency

  • Elliot Aronson's Proposition:
    • Cognitive dissonance’s core is tied to self-concept inconsistency.
    • Awareness of self-concept influences dissonance.
  • High Stakes and Low Rewards:
    • Participants paid $1 for lying found greater dissonance due to a self-perception of honesty versus $20 participants.

Individual Differences and Cognitive Dissonance

  • Aronson's Analysis:
    • Focused on individual variances in cognitive dissonance experiences, addressing those who recognize their own morally ambiguous actions (manipulators vs. non-manipulators).
  • Preference for Consistency and Research Findings:
    • High preference for consistency correlates with cognitive dissonance propensity; global findings showed inconsistencies may only reflect a third of the population.

Self-Perception Theory

Application of Self-Perception Theory
  • Bem (1967) Conclusion:
    • Individuals assess their behaviour to deduce their attitudes.
    • Example: In a low-payment condition, participants convince themselves they genuinely enjoyed a task due to not being significantly compensated.

Physiological Arousal Tied to Dissonance

  • Debate in Dissonance Literature:
    • Physiological responses accompany cognitive dissonance, postulated by Pallak and Pittman (1972).
  • Finding Middle Ground:
    • Dissonance theory applies when attitudes are clearly defined, while self-perception pertains to ambiguous context.

Self-Affirmation Theory

Steele's Self-Affirmation Theory
  • Dissonance linked to threatened self-integrity rather than inconsistency.
  • The individual’s response is centered on affirming a self-concept rather than purely rectifying dissonance.
  • Self-affirmation moderated experiences of inconsistency, greatly reducing the impact of conscious cognitive dissonance.

Summary of Cognitive Dissonance and Related Theories

  1. Festinger (1954):
    • Psychological inconsistency drives cognitive dissonance.
  2. Aronson's Self-Consistency Theory:
    • Incompatibility of cognitions correlates with self-concept.
  3. Bem’s Self-Perception Theory:
    • Behaviours are monitored leading to inferred attitudes.
  4. Steele’s Self-Affirmation Theory:
    • Dissonance arises from threats to self-integrity.

Reactance Theory: Assumptions and Principles

  • Core Beliefs of Reactance:
    • Freedom is perceived as the ability to apply behaviour.
    • Psychological reactance motivates re-establishment of threatened behaviours.
  • Assumptions Outlined:
    1. Freedom of behaviour is prevailing.
    2. Human interactions hinge on freedom.
    3. Humans are goal-oriented.
    4. Individuals largely act freely.
    5. Specific behaviours must be actionable.

Threat and Reactance Relation

  • Threat levels correlate with perceived freedom.
  • Factors influencing reactance magnitude include:
    1. Magnitude of threat to freedom
    2. Emergence of freedom from disrupted behaviours
    3. Important freedoms for fulfilling needs
    4. Severity of core personal needs
    5. Extent of freedom loss.
Types of Threats
  • Distinguishing between personal and impersonal threats:
    • Personal threats reveal intent and motives, influencing future interactions.
    • Impersonal threats lessen perceived dangers; they do not directly affect the individual.
  • Non-social threats exist in degrees of significance recognized based on relation contexts.

Magnitude of Reactance

  • A high-level threat amidst low freedom results in low psychological arousal.
  • Reactance can increase when threats follow prior disturbances, adhering to conditions of varied intensity.

Effects of Reactance

  • Reactance as a motivative force restores freedoms through behavioural assertions.
  • Engaging reactance can demonstrate assertive freedom reinstatement, both direct (behavioural) and indirect (non-behavioural).
  • Group dynamics often invoke reactance under peer influence; decisions arise from collective assessments.

Social Exchange and Reactance

Applying Social Exchange Theory to Reactance
  • Reciprocity mediated by social exchange influences reactance.
  • Individuals attempt to resist behaviour through various strategies categorized in the context of social exchanges.
The Forbidden Fruit Hypothesis
  • Restrictions on acquiring items elevate their desirability; warning labels can reduce appeal indicating potential harm.

Role of Social Influence on Reactance

  • Reactance peaks when perceived freedoms are constrained by social influences.
  • Individual comparisons anticipate regret, affecting levels of reactance compared to conformity scenarios.

Attribution Theories

Defining Attribution
  • Attribution defined as:
    • The process of identifying causes behind behaviours to better understand personal traits.
Dispositional vs. Situational Attribution
  • Dispositional Attributions:
    • Linked to internal characteristics—temperament and beliefs.
  • Situational Attributions:
    • Associated with external factors influencing behaviour such as circumstance and environment.
Dimensions of Attributions
  • Distinction between spontaneous and deliberative attributions affects behavioural explanation processes.
  • Heider’s Theory:
    • How sensory information interacts with object perception to form attributions.

Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965)

Dispositional Inference Conditions
  • Five conditions essential for proper dispositional attributions:
    1. Individual’s free choice in action.
    2. Non-common effects indicate specific outcomes.
    3. Non-socially desirable behaviours receive more dispositional weight.
    4. Hedonic relevance affects observers' judgments.
    5. Personalism directs behaviour toward observers.

Limitations of Correspondent Inference Theory

  • Issues arise regarding observers’ knowledge of voluntary actions and cognitive limitations, underestimating situational attributions.

Kelley’s Covariation Model

Model Elements
  • The theory posits three forms of information to attribute outcomes through the covariation sources:
    1. Consistency:
    • How regularly a behaviour occurs.
    1. Distinctiveness:
    • Specificity of the behaviour itself.
    1. Consensus:
    • How others behave in comparable situations.

Weiner’s Attribution Theory of Achievement

Weiner's Model
  • Focuses on performance attributions rooted in internal/external causes, with three defining dimensions:
    1. Locus: The cause being personal or situational.
    2. Stability: Whether the cause is enduring or unstable.
    3. Controllability: The extent to which performance can be altered.

Comparison of Attribution Theories

  • Theories function as complementary systems that facilitate varying attribution contexts.

Social Categorization and Social Identity

Self-Categorization Theory
  • Individuals categorize themselves which leads to group dynamics such as “us” vs. “them.”
  • Importance of Categorization:
    • Helps organize social categories and establish hierarchies leading to personal attributes linked to group memberships.
Social Identity Dimensions
  • Social identification contributes to self-concept in relation to group membership, affecting behaviors based on category emotions and values.

Group Consciousness and Social Comparisons

Implications of Social Identity
  • Social identity reflects the emotional component tied to belonging, which influences self-esteem and attitudes in contexts of perceived value.

Group Biases and Minimal Group Paradigm

Ingroup Bias Laboratory Testing
  • Tajfel's Minimal Group Paradigm:
    • Attempts to demonstrate in-group bias through monetary allocations; revealing biases emerge from simply assigning group designations.

Coping Strategies for Negative Social Identity

Mechanisms for Adjusting Identity
  1. Individual Mobility:
  • Dissociating from one’s group to elevate social status.
  1. Social Creativity:
  • Reframing group distinctions positively through comparisons.
  1. Social Competition:
  • Promoting group enhancement activities to combat negative stereotypes.
Ethnic Group Considerations
  • Research shows ethnic minorities perceive themselves against negative stereotypes leading to coping or compensatory strategies.

Social Identity Complexities

Multi-group Membership Interactions
  • People often belong to several categories, influencing intergroup dynamics and self-perception through macro-level identities.

Conclusion of Theories

  • Diverse Needs in Identity Formation:
  • Human relational quality influences identity categorizations balancing uniqueness with assimilation expectations, impacting interpersonal interactions.