Cognitive Dissonance Lecture Flashcards

Fundamentals of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Definition: Cognitive dissonance is defined by Leon Festinger (1957) as an uncomfortable state of arousal resulting from two thoughts contradicting each other.
  • Initial Discovery and the Seeker Cult: Leon Festinger studied a cult (the Seekers) led by Dorothy, who predicted the end of the world.     * The Conflict: Followers believed the prophecies (Thought #1) but the world did not end (Thought #2).     * The Dissonance Extenders: The level of dissonance was high because followers had taken extreme actions, such as quitting jobs, selling houses, abandoning families, and maintaining absolute obedience and faithfulness.     * The Resolution: To reduce the mental discomfort, the followers did not abandon the leader; instead, they adopted a new cognition: "We must have saved the world!" (Adding a cognition to resolve the contradiction).

The Five-Step Process of Dissonance

  1. Relevance: Are the thoughts relevant to one another?     * Example of Relevance: "I believe exercising is important" vs. "I rarely exercise."     * Example of Irrelevance: "I believe exercising is important" vs. "My favorite artist is Doja Cat."
  2. Dissonance or Consonance: If the thoughts are relevant, are they dissonant (conflicting) or consonant (consistent)?     * Consonant: "I believe exercising is important. I exercise daily."     * Dissonant: "I believe exercising is important. I rarely exercise."
  3. Negative Arousal: If the thoughts are dissonant, it leads to a state of discomfort or negative arousal.
  4. Motivation to Reduce Arousal: The discomfort creates a drive to alleviate the tension.
  5. Change in Cognition or Behavior: This motivation leads to an actual change in how one thinks or acts.

Methods for Reducing Dissonance

  • Change a Cognition: Altering one of the conflicting beliefs.     * Example: "Exercise isn't that important!"
  • Add a Consonant Cognition: Introducing a new thought or behavior to bridge the gap.     * Example (New Thought): "For me, it’s more important that I focus on my diet right now."     * Example (New Behavior): "I’m going to go for a jog tomorrow."
  • Minimize the Conflict's Importance: Trivializing the inconsistency so it no longer causes arousal.

Insufficient Justification: The Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) Study

  • The Concept: What happens when there is no "good reason" (sufficient external justification) for performing a hypocritical act?
  • The Procedure:     * Participants performed "REALLY boring tasks" for one hour.     * Participants were then asked to lie to the next participant, telling them the task was fun, enjoyable, and exciting.
  • Independent Variables (IV):     * Incentive to lie: One group was paid $1, and the other was paid $20 (which is approximately $178 in today's currency).
  • Dependent Variable (DV): Self-reported interest (the "actual" interest in the task after lying).
  • The Conflict:     * Thought #1: The experiment was boring.     * Thought #2: I told someone it was interesting.
  • The Results:     * 2020 Group: They experienced low dissonance because they had high external justification. They could say, "I was coerced/paid a lot of money to lie." Their attitude toward the task remained that it was boring.     * 11 Group: They experienced high dissonance because 11 was not enough to justify the lie. To resolve the discomfort, they changed Cognition #1: "I must have liked the task after all."
  • Major Finding: Hypocrisy leads to attitude change, but only if people feel the hypocrisy was freely chosen and lacks sufficient external justification.

Effort Justification: Aronson and Mills (1959)

  • The Concept: High effort toward a goal that yields a mediocre result leads to attitude change to justify that effort.
  • The Study: Participants signed up for a discussion group on "The Psychology of Sex."
  • IV: The severity of the initiation.     * Mild Initiation: Reading relatively polite words like "Prostitute," "Virgin," or "Petting."     * Severe Initiation: Reading obscene/explicit words like "Screw," "Cock," or "Fuck."
  • The Reality: The actual discussion was intentionally made to be very boring, focusing on "animal rutting behavior."
  • Results: The Severe Initiation group rated the discussion group as significantly more likable than the control or mild groups.
  • Dissonance Reduction: The severe group thought, "I put in a lot of effort to get in" and "This group is boring." This created dissonance, so they changed their thought to: "The group is actually interesting."

Application of Effort Justification: Axom & Cooper (1985)

  • Goal: Using cognitive dissonance to assist with weight loss.
  • Participants: Individuals 10−20%10 - 20\% over their target body weight.
  • Procedure: Five training sessions using a bogus "neuropsychological arousal" task (e.g., reciting "Mary had a little lamb" while hearing an echo of their own voice or identifying line orientations).
  • IV:     * High Effort Task: Lasted 50 minutes50\,\text{minutes}.     * Low Effort Task: Lasted 10 minutes10\,\text{minutes}.
  • Results: Despite the tasks being scientifically useless for weight loss, high-effort participants lost significantly more weight. They justified the high effort of the sessions by becoming more committed to their actual goal of weight loss.

Spreading of Alternatives: Brehm (1956)

  • The Concept: Dissonance occurs when choosing between two items that are liked equally. The conflict is: "I like both," but "I only chose one."
  • The Study: A "consumer study" where participants ranked household items and were offered one as a gift.
  • Results: After making a choice (e.g., choosing a toaster over a blender), participants re-ranked the items. The chosen item (toaster) increased in desirability, while the rejected item (blender) decreased.
  • Dissonance Reduction: By devaluing the alternative and overvaluing the choice, the individual justifies their decision and eliminates the "what if" regret.

System Justification Theory

  • Theory: People feel more positively toward social systems when faced with negative information about those systems because they are dependent on them.
  • Mechanism:     * Thought #1: The system is bad/ineffective.     * Thought #2: I am dependent on the system.     * Resolution: "The system isn't that bad."
  • Scenario 1: Hurricane Katrina:     * Thought #1: The government failed to deal with the disaster.     * Thought #2: I am dependent on the government for safety.     * Resolution: Victim blaming (e.g., "People shouldn't live below sea level," "They should have evacuated") to protect the belief in the system.
  • Scenario 2: Depressed Entitlement:     * Thought #1: I do the same quality of work as men.     * Thought #2: I (as a woman) get paid less than men for the same job.     * Resolution: "I don't deserve equal pay" (Changing the cognition to reduce dissonance).
  • Observation: Those most disadvantaged by a system are paradoxically often the most likely to justify it when things go wrong.

Questions and Discussion

  • Jerry the Student: Jerry thinks he is a good student but performs poorly in difficult classes.     * Predicted Outcome: To reduce dissonance, he is most likely to believe that incorrect responses do not reflect whether he is a good student (Option B).
  • Cap’n Jesse and the Parrot: After being unable to catch a parrot, he calls it annoying and unloyal and claims he didn't want it anyway.     * Technique: This is an example of Spreading of Alternatives (Option C).
  • Cap’n Jesse and the First Mate: A Captain makes mates perform a difficult 24-hour swabbing task before joining.     * Predicted Outcome: Based on effort justification, the mates will feel more positively (Option A) toward the Captain.
  • Peg-legged Charlie and the High Reward: A cannon hater is paid a "ton of money" to advertise cannons.     * True or False: Will he feel positively toward cannons? False. This is "over-justification." He knows he only likes the money, not the product; therefore, no attitude change regarding the cannons occurs.

  • Cognitive Dissonance: An uncomfortable feeling arising from opposing thoughts.

  • Example: Believing that smoking is harmful (Thought #1) while continuing to smoke (Thought #2).

  • The Five-Step Process of Dissonance:

    1. Relevance: Are the thoughts related?
    • Example: "I need to study" vs. "I'm playing video games."
    1. Dissonance or Consonance: Are the ideas in conflict?
    • Consonant: "I study hard. I do well on tests."
    • Dissonant: "I study hard. I fail my tests."
    1. Negative Arousal: Dissonance causes discomfort.
    2. Motivation to Reduce Arousal: Desire to alleviate discomfort, leading to changes in behavior or thoughts.
    3. Change in Cognition or Behavior: Examples include adjusting beliefs or actions to align with each other.

  • Methods for Reducing Dissonance:

    • Change a Cognition: Alter conflicting beliefs.
    • Example: "Exercise isn’t necessary for me."
    • Add a Consonant Cognition: Introduce a consistent thought.
    • Example: "I’ll focus on eating well instead of exercising."
    • Minimize the Conflict's Importance: Downplay the inconsistency.

  • Example of Insufficient Justification:

    • When asked to lie for $1 vs. $20, participants justifying their lie differently based on pay.
    • Finding: Lower pay led to greater attitude change due to feeling hypocritical without sufficient reason.

  • Effort Justification:

    • High effort for a disappointing result leads to attitude change to justify the effort.
    • Example: Participants who faced a harsh initiation rated a dull discussion as more enjoyable to align their views with their effort.