Self-Justification Self-Justification People are

Cognitive Dissonance Example<br>

Cognitive Dissonance Because the occurrence of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people are motivated to reduce it
We reduce dissonance by:
Changing our attitude
Changing our perception of the behavior
Adding cognitions to support a belief
Minimizing the importance of the conflict
Reducing perceived choice<br>

Cognitive Dissonance So in the smoking example, a smoker could:
Change their attitude: I should quit smoking; it’s bad!
Change the perception of the behavior: I don’t actually smoke that much
Add cognitions to support a belief: the research that says smoking causes cancer is flawed!
Minimize the importance of the conflict: it’s not really so important whether or not I smoke; everyone dies some day
Reduce perceived choice: it’s impossible to quit, so I might as well smoke<br>

Cognitive Dissonance Example 2: “I need to be on a diet, yet I’ve just scarfed down a chocolate mousse.” How would you reduce dissonance aroused by this discrepancy between your attitude and your behavior?














(Brehm et al., 2002)<br>

Cognitive Dissonance The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture people as rational beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing beings
According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we are motivated not so much to be right as to believe we are right (and wise, decent, and good)
We have trouble tolerating the thoughts that we are bad, inconsistent, or illogical, so we try to reduce the evidence that we might be these things
The deeper a person’s commitment to an attitude, the greater his or her tendency to reject evidence that would cause dissonance; individuals will distort the objective world to reduce their dissonance
Dartmouth versus Princeton football game (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954): this was known as one of the most aggressive games of all times. A researcher asked students at Dartmouth and Princeton to watch tapes of the game objectively and take notes of each infraction of the rules. Princeton students saw twice as many violations by Dartmouth players as the Dartmouth students saw!
People don’t passively take in information; how we see things depends on our preexisting beliefs and attitudes<br>

Dissonance Reduction and Rational Behavior Dissonance-reducing behavior is irrational: it is often maladaptive because it can prevent people from learning important facts or from finding real solutions to their problems
For example, when people discount evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming, they are less likely to reduce their carbon footprint and more likely to speed up global warming
However, this does serve a purpose: reducing dissonance helps us maintain a positive image of ourselves
Research has demonstrated the irrationality of dissonance-reducing behavior
When people who were deeply committed to a position on the issue of racial segregation were presented with plausible and implausible arguments on both sides, they tended to remember the plausible arguments agreeing with their own position and the implausible arguments agreeing with the opposing position (Jones & Kohler, 1959)<br>

Dissonance Reduction and Rational Behavior It is important to note that the world is not divided into rational people on one side and dissonance reducers (irrational people) on the other side
Some people are able to tolerate dissonance better than others, but we are all capable of rational behavior, and we are all capable of dissonance-reducing (irrational) behavior, depending on the circumstances
See the next slide for a great explanation (by an eminent psychologist) of how cognitive dissonance can apply to everyday life<br>

Dear Irrational (Does it Pay to Play Hard to Get?)
25th August 2009, 06:04 am
Dear Irrational,
I recently met a great guy – let’s call him George – and now I can’t stop thinking about him. Though we’ve only been on a couple dinner dates, he’s officially won me over.
Now here’s my problem: Smitten as I am, I’m ready to hop into bed with George this very minute, but I’m not sure that’s the best idea. After all, there must be some reason that all those books and magazines (not to mention my mother) champion the make-him-wait rule. But does it really work? I’ve never followed it in the past, but then, I can’t say I have the best dating track record either.
What do you think? Should I play hard to get, or no? Help!
Sincerely,
Unsure
——
Dear Unsure,
Your mother is right: making the guy sweat a little is in your best interest if you want to maximize the chances of a long-term relationship. The reason lies in cognitive dissonance, which refers to what we do when our beliefs and actions misalign: Can’t change the cold, hard facts? Then change your beliefs!
The classic experiment here comes from psychologists Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith, who had participants perform a boring task and then paid them either $20 or $1 to convince someone else that the task had been great fun. Everyone then rated the task, with the result that the $1 participants rated the task more positively than did the $20 crew. While the $20 group could explain away the dissonance between their action (“I told someone the task was riveting”) and their belief (“It actually bored me to tears”) via money (“I was paid to promote the task”), the $1 individuals could not because they could not justify misleading others for such a small amount of money, so they changed their initial belief (“I must really like the task to have promoted it”), and they ended up rating the task more positively.
To give you an example that is closer to our social life, look at fraternities: loyalty to frats increases with the amount of hazing, since pledges tell themselves, “I did a lot of embarrassing stuff for my frat – it must really matter to me.”
So, going back to your dilemma, Unsure, cognitive dissonance suggests that if you really want a guy, you have to create a dissonance for him so that he will say, “Wow, if I put in all this effort for the woman, I must love her.”
This means that you have to make George pursue you. Instead of splitting the check, you let him pick up the entire tab. Instead of calling him up and suggesting dates, you leave the calling and planning up to him. In other words, make him work, and he will rationalize it by deciding he loves you.
Good luck.
Irrationally yours,
Dan Arielly<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision Following a decision—especially a difficult one, or one that involves a significant amount of time, effort, or money—people almost always experience dissonance
When deciding whether to buy an SUV or a compact car, a buyer will think of good reasons to choose each type of car, and also there will be some cons to each choice. Thus, they will experience cognitive dissonance.
This occurs because the chosen alternative is seldom entirely positive, and the rejected alternatives are seldom entirely negative<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision To reduce dissonance, people cognitively justify their choices by:
Seeking out exclusively positive information about the car we chose (e.g., read ads for the model we chose)
Avoiding negative information about our choice (e.g., steer clear of ads for other makes of cars)
Seeking out exclusively negative information about the car we did not choose
After making decisions, people try to gain reassurance that their decisions were wise by seeking information that is certain to be reassuring (Ehrlich et al., 1957)<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision Brehm’s (1956) study illustrates our tendency to experience dissonance as a consequence of decision-making and to reduce dissonance by cognitively justifying it
Women were shown various appliances (e.g., toaster, coffee maker) and were asked to rate each in terms of attractiveness
Each woman was then told she could have one of the appliances as a gift and was given a choice between two of the products she had rated as equally attractive
After she was given her chosen product, she was asked to rate the products again
Results: after receiving the product of her choice, each woman rated the attractiveness of that product somewhat higher and decreased the rating of the appliance she had initially rated as equally attractive but had rejected<br>

Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision Similar processes can affect our
romantic relationships and our
willingness to consider becoming
involved with alternative partners

In short, once a firm commitment has been made, people tend to focus on the positive aspects of their choices and downplay the positive aspects of the unchosen alternatives<br>

Foot-In-The-Door Technique Foot-in-the-door technique = the process of using small favors to encourage people to accede to larger requests
This technique is effective because having done the smaller favor sets up pressure toward agreeing to do the larger favor; in effect, it provides justification in advance for complying with the large request
A refusal of the larger favor would be inconsistent with the attitudes that led you to grant the smaller favor
For example, researchers tried to convince homeowners to put up a huge, ugly sign in their yard that said, “Drive Carefully” – only 17% agreed to do so
With a different group of homeowners, they first asked them to sign a petition favoring safe driving, then asked them to put up the same safe driving sign – 55% of this group allowed the sign to be posted!<br>

The Importance of Irrevocability The irrevocability of a decision always increases dissonance and the motivation to reduce it
Once a decision is final, people begin to try to make themselves feel good about the choice they made
Thus, people often become more certain that they have made a wise decision after there is nothing they can do about it
When people can change their decision, they are less certain it is the correct choice!
Evidence for the importance of irrevocability
Participants who had already placed their racetrack bets were more confident that their horse would win than those participants who were about to place their bets (Knox & Inkster, 1968)<br>

The Importance of Irrevocability Although the irrevocability of a decision always increases dissonance and the motivation to reduce it, there are certain circumstances in which irrevocability is unnecessary for this to occur
A salesperson can convince a customer to agree to purchase a car for a higher price than the customer had intended to pay by first convincing the customer to agree to a very low cost, then claiming it was an error, and then raising the price. This is called lowballing (Cialdini et al., 1978)<br>

Lowballing Why does lowballing work?
The customer already psychologically committed to buying the car by writing the down payment check, thus creating the illusion of irrevocability
The commitment triggers the anticipation of a pleasurable experience – the excitement of driving a new car (to have this thwarted would have produced dissonance and disappointment)
Although the price is significantly higher than the customer thought it would be, it is only slightly higher than the price somewhere else
So the customer thinks, “What the hell, I’m already here and filled out these forms, so why wait?”<br>

The Importance of Irrevocability Dissonance can also impact the decision to behave morally or immorally
Making difficult decisions always leads to dissonance (cheating vs. not cheating)
Once tempted, those who submit to an “immoral” temptation are more likely to adopt a more lenient attitude about it, while those who resist it are more likely to strongly oppose it
Mills (1958) measured a group of 6th graders’ attitudes towards cheating, then had them take a competitive exam with prizes for the winners, but it was easy to cheat and almost impossible to win without cheating. The next day, kids were asked again to rate how they feel about cheating – those who cheated became more lenient about cheating, and those who didn’t had an even harsher view of cheating than they had before.<br>

The Importance of Irrevocability The same mechanism that enables a person to cling to an attitude can induce that individual to change an attitude

It depends on which course of action will serve most to reduce dissonance under the circumstances

Two people who act in different ways could have started out with almost identical ambivalent attitudes, but once they make their decision, their attitudes diverge sharply as a consequence<br>

Self-Justification: A Quote “Man is the only animal that learns by being hypocritical. He pretends to be polite and then eventually, he becomes polite.”
- Jean Kerr<br>

Dissonant Situations We sometimes find ourselves saying or doing things we don’t completely believe; however, this does not always lead to attitude change
For example, if you walk into a friend’s apartment, and they show off their new furniture, which you think is very ugly, you might compliment it anyway. This will not change your attitude because you have a strong reason for saying something you don’t believe – you know you are just doing it to avoid hurting your friend’s feelings. Thus, providing a false compliment does not cause you to change your beliefs because you have an external justification.<br>

External Justification External justification = a person’s reason or explanation for his or her dissonant behavior that resides not in the individual but in the situation
If you have external justification, you don’t have to soften or change your beliefs as a result of cognitive dissonance because you have another reason to justify your thoughts and behaviors
Some examples of external justification:
The idea that it’s harmless to tell a lie to avoid hurting a person’s feelings (such as in the example on the last slide)
Drunkenness as an excuse for one’s actions
You get a reward for behaving in a certain way<br>

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification When people state a belief that they don’t really agree with:
First, they try to justify it externally by looking for situational reasons why they would state something they don’t really believe
If this doesn’t work, they will try to use internal justification
Internal justification = the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g., one’s attitude or behavior)
This can be done by shifting your attitudes to make them more consistent with something you said or did<br>

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification We begin to believe our own lies—but only if we can’t find abundant external justification for making the statements that run counter to our original attitudes
Typically, the greater the reward offered for compliance, the more likely a person is to comply.
This is because there is a high level of external justification; therefore, we don’t need to change our beliefs!
However, when it comes to producing a lasting change in attitude, the greater the reward, the less likely any attitude change will occur
This is because when we have less external justification (the reward), we will be more likely to shift to internal justification and change our attitudes<br>

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification Very powerful form of attitude change: if we change our attitudes because we have made a public statement for minimal external justification, our attitude change will be relatively permanent
We are not changing our attitudes because of a reward (compliance) or because of the influence of an attractive person (identification)
We are changing our attitudes because we have succeeded in convincing ourselves that our previous attitudes were incorrect
For example, let’s say you are very against people owning guns, and I ask you to make a speech in favor of private gun ownership. You will likely agree to do it if I offer you a lot of money, but in this case, after the speech, your views on gun ownership are less likely to change. But if I give you only a very small reward for making the speech, you will likely seek additional justification for delivering the speech by convincing yourself that the things you said were actually true. In this case, you may actually change your attitude rather than merely comply with my request.<br>

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
Asked college students to perform a boring and repetitive series of tasks for one hour
The experimenter then induced them to lie about the task (tell the next participant the task is interesting and enjoyable)
Some students were offered $20 for telling a lie; others were offered $1
After the experiment was over, students were asked how much they enjoyed the tasks they had performed earlier
Results:
$20 condition rated the activity as dull (because it was dull)
$1 condition rated the task as enjoyable! This is an example of inadequate justification at work – they resorted to internal justification when they did not earn much money for the lie<br>

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification Zimbardo et al. (1965)
Army reservists were asked to try fried grasshoppers
This request was made either by a warm, friendly officer or by a cold, unfriendly officer
Reservists’ attitudes toward eating grasshoppers were measured before and after they ate the grasshoppers
Results:
Reservists who ate grasshoppers at the request of the mean officer increased their liking for the grasshoppers far more than those who ate the grasshoppers at the request of the nice officer
This is another case of people finding internal justification when their behavior could not be justified externally<br>

A Reformulation of Dissonance Theory Aronson(1968) reformulated Festinger’s dissonance theory in a way that focuses more attention on the way people conceive of themselves
This reformulation suggests that dissonance is most powerful in situations in which the self-concept is threatened
For example, if my self-concept is that I have integrity, then if I tell people something I don’t believe, this will result in cognitive dissonance
So, in the study where students were induced to lie that a boring task was interesting, they felt dissonance because their self-concept was that they are people who don’t lie
This reformulation is based on the assumption that most individuals like to think of themselves as decent people who wouldn’t ordinarily mislead someone<br>

A Reformulation of Dissonance Theory Dissonance effects are greatest when (1) people feel personally responsible for their actions, and (2) their actions have serious consequences

That is, the greater the consequence and the greater our responsibility for it, the greater the dissonance; the greater the dissonance, the greater our attitude change

Aronson’s reformulation stresses that dissonance is aroused when the self-concept is challenged<br>

Inadequate Rewards & Education Inadequate Rewards as Applied to Education
Reminder: Performance of a dull task for little pay is rated as more enjoyable than if payment is large
If you give a kid a lot of external justification for reciting the multiplication tables, they will be less likely to recite them in his or her free time. But, if you provide him or her with little reward, he or she will add his or her own justification for performing the drill and will be more likely to practice on his or her own
Lepper study: some children were told to work on puzzles but would get to do a more fun activity later. The other children weren’t promised anything in return. Those who weren’t promised a reward later spent their free time playing with the puzzles, but those who had been rewarded did not play with puzzles in their free time when they had another choice
By offering children a reward for playing, the experimenters succeeded in turning play into work!<br>

Inadequate Rewards & Education Inadequate Rewards as Applied to Education
What is the impact of praise as a reward?
Henderlong and Lepper- reviewed a host of studies and found that praise can be beneficial, but only if it is done in moderation and in a way that makes children feel competent
Causing a person to focus on the extrinsic reasons for performing well will reduce the attractiveness of the task itself
Additionally, Dweck’s work shows that praise is most effective if it is focused on efforts rather than talent or ability.
If you praise children for being smart, then when they aren’t doing well, they start to believe they’re not as smart as the person giving the praise had thought.<br>

Insufficient Punishment The use of threats of harsh punishment as a means of getting someone to refrain from doing something he or she enjoys is ineffective without constant harassment and vigilance because he or she will refrain only as long as you’re watching.
So, harsh punishment won’t teach kids not to cheat in school – it will just teach them to avoid getting caught
Without severe external justification for restraint, the person will seek internal justification
Allowing people the opportunity to construct their own internal justification can be a large step toward helping them develop a permanent set of values.
Aronson and Carlsmith: told 5 year old children they could not play with a toy they really liked. Half of the kids were told if they played with it, there would be a mild punishment; others were threatened with a severe punishment. The kids who had received a mild threat rated the toy as less attractive than those who received a severe threat – they had had to find internal justification in order to avoid playing with the toy!<br>

The Justification of Effort According to dissonance theory, if a person works hard to attain a goal, that goal will be more attractive to the individual than it will be to someone who achieves the same goal with little or no effort
For example, a newly initiated frat member may regard his messy roommate as casual rather than sloppy because he had had to work so hard to get into the frat that it would cause cognitive dissonance to believe the frat is unpleasant
Aronson and Mills (1959) study: if women had to go through an effortful screening test to join a group to discuss sex, they would rate the boring group as more interesting than if they did not have the tough screening test
This process is called justification of effort: if a person goes through a difficult experience to attain a goal or object, the goal or object becomes more attractive<br>

The Justification of Cruelty As we have discussed, our need to convince ourselves that we are decent, reasonable people can cause us to change our attitudes on issues important to us
When performing an act of cruelty, your cognition, “I am a decent, fair, and reasonable person,” is dissonant with your cognition, “I have hurt another person”
In this situation, the most effective way to reduce dissonance would be to maximize the culpability of the victim (e.g., you begin to think he or she deserved it)
Davis and Jones (1960) study: students watched another student be interviewed, then were instructed to tell the interviewed student he or she was shallow, untrustworthy, and dull. Students who had to say this convinced themselves that they didn’t like the victim of their cruelty and found him or her less attractive than they did before saying the cruel statements.<br>

The Justification of Cruelty Limitations to this phenomenon:
People with low self-esteem have less need to derogate their victims
If I think I’m a terrible person, then causing others to suffer doesn’t cause dissonance, so I don’t need to convince myself they deserved my cruelty
If the victim is able and willing to retaliate in the future, then the harm-doer feels that equity will be restored and, thus, has no need to justify the action by derogating the victim
These results suggest that during a war, soldiers might have a greater need to derogate civilian victims (because they can’t retaliate)<br>

The Justification of Cruelty This is a cartoon from a Nazi newspaper that suggests that Jews were sucking the economic life out of Gentiles as well as comparing Jews to inhuman creatures
This type of propaganda reduced the dissonance associated with killing innocent people by seeing them as animals who were cruel<br>

The Psychology of Inevitability When a situation arises that is both negative and inevitable, people attempt to make the best of things by cognitively minimizing the unpleasantness of the situation
Brehm (1959): got children to eat a vegetable they had disliked. After they ate the vegetable, half of the kids were told they would have to eat much more in the future. Those children succeeded in convincing themselves that the vegetable was not so bad to reduce the dissonance associated with having to eat a lot of a vegetable they didn’t like.<br>

The Psychology of Inevitability Deemphasizing the negative in the face of the inevitable can be adaptive, but it can also be disastrous
Lehman and Taylor (1987)—there was a high probability of a major earthquake in LA in the 1980s, so they interviewed 120 students at UCLA and found that only 5% had taken any safety precautions and knew what to do in the event of an earthquake. Only 1/3 knew the best action in an earthquake is to crawl under a heavy piece of furniture or stand in a doorway. Not one student had taken the preparation measures recommended by experts.
Why did they do this? Because they rationalized: if I’m sure there’s going to be an earthquake, how can I justify staying here? By denying that there’s an earthquake coming (i.e., deemphasizing the negative)!<br>

Dissonance Reduction is Unconscious The process of reducing dissonance is largely unconscious
Our attempts at dissonance reduction would not be very convincing otherwise

For example, if your boyfriend dumps
you, you will gradually convince yourself that he
is a big jerk and you deserve better. But this
would not be very effective if it was a conscious
process!<br>

Importance of Self-Esteem As we have discussed, the deepest form of commitment takes place when a person’s self-esteem is at stake
People with low-self esteem will not find it difficult to commit immoral acts because this is not dissonant with their self-concept
People with high-self esteem are more likely to resist the temptation to commit immoral acts because this would produce dissonance<br>

Importance of Self-Esteem Aronson and Mettee (1968):
Gave some students positive feedback about their personality (that they were deep, mature, and interesting)
Gave other students negative feedback (that they were immature, uninteresting, and shallow)
Didn’t give any feedback to control students.
Then the students had to play a card game where they could keep their winnings and where cheating was possible and highly increased the chance of winning.
Students who had received positive feedback about themselves cheated far less than students who had received negative feedback about themselves. Those who received no information fell in between the other two groups.<br>

Physiological & Motivational Effects of Dissonance How far can the effects of dissonance extend?
Researchers have shown that it can go beyond attitudes; it can modify the way we experience basic physiological drives.
For example, volunteers who commit to being deprived of food and water or receiving electric shocks will convince themselves that the hunger pains aren’t so intense, the thirst isn’t so bad, or the pain isn’t so great to reduce the dissonance that they volunteered for this experience.
Our basic physiological drives all have a psychological component to them!<br>

Dissonance Reduction & Culture Is the experience of cognitive dissonance universal?
Although most of the research has been conducted in North America, the effects have been shown to exist in every part of the world where research has been done
However, the specific effects do not always take precisely the same form in all cultures
In less individualistic societies, dissonance-reducing behavior may take a more communal form; for example, dissonance can arise when something happens to a friend, not just to yourself!<br>

The end<br>