Cognitive Dissonance

http://www.ciadvertising.org/sa/fall_03/adv382J/mbabbott/index.htm

viewed, 6 may, 2:27am

M. Bruce Abbott, University of Texas in Austin, Sept 2003

Introduction

1957 marked the release of the unitary volume of work entitled "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance". It's author, Stanford Professor of Psychology Dr. Leon Festinger noticed a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their attitudes and behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Sometimes a situation arises where attitudes or beliefs and behaviors are not consistent with each other - thus known as dissonance. Festinger states "the existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance" and " when dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance" (Festinger 1957). Therefore, in a given situation, an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. In this theory it is revealed that attitude change generally moves in the direction of less incentive (for the individual) resulting in less dissonance as opposed to most behavioral theories which predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (for example, reinforcement). The theory discusses how individuals will make that change in an effort to eliminate the dissonance and reduce the distress felt as a result of the conflict.

Introduction (continued)

Festinger's (1957) classic example of cognitive dissonance is that of the cigarette smoker. Smokers are fully aware of the harmful effects of smoking, yet they continue to smoke. How is the distress handled? To reduce the dissonance, the smoker can either change his behavior and give up smoking, or to change his attitude toward smoking. The smoker will reduce his cognitive dissonance with rationalization such as "I am going to die anyway" or "if I stop smoking, I'll put on weight which is equally bad for my health".

This website will discuss four primary hypotheses developed as means to reduce dissonance between attitudes and actions. The first hypothesis will examine how selective exposure prevents dissonance. This hypothesis essentially states that dissonance is reduced by associating with people like ourselves. The second hypothesis examines how the need for reassurance is created through post decision dissonance. The third hypothesis examines how a minimal justification for a behavior can induce a shift in attitude. The fourth (and most recent) hypothesis examines the relationship of the magnitude of the dissonance in relation to the reduction of dissonance (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999, p.4).

This website will look at a classic experiment performed by Dr. Festinger at Stanford University which asks the question, "Would I lie for a dollar?" (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). This website looks at the cause and effect of dissonance - the paradigms used to analyze the theory, and revisions to Dr. Festinger's original theory. Next, persuasion through dissonance places the theory of cognitive dissonance in the world of advertising (with advertising samples posted as examples). And finally, this website will look at some popular critiques to the cognitive dissonance theory.

Definitions

Cognitive dissonance - distress caused by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs, or a belief and an action. This distress becomes motivation to change the BELIEF.

Selective Exposure - the principle that individuals only pay attention to ideas they ALREADY believe because discrepant information would lead to mental distress.

Post Decision Dissonance - distress as a result of doubts about a decision AFTER the decision has been made. The result is a need for reassurance. Generally the higher the importance of the decision, the greater the need for reassurance.

Minimal Justification Hypothesis - The idea that the best way to achieve attitude change is to offer just enough reward or punishment to elicit compliance.

The Stanford Experiment - 1959 Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith

Would you lie for a dollar?

In this classic experiment conducted at Stanford University, men were recruited to participate in an unknown study. The men assigned the monotonous and boring task of sorting spools. The experimenter would then convince each subject to lie to waiting potential female subjects about how much fun sorting spools was, and that they should help. The men were paid either $1 or $20 to convince these females that this boring, monotonous task was in fact exciting! (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959) . Most behavioral theories (i.e. reinforcement theories) would predict that the more a male participant was paid to lie to the female subject, the more that male subject would come to like the actual boring task (after all, yes the work was boring, but they were getting paid $20 to recruit unsuspecting help, right?). Dissonance theory, (Festinger, 1957) however argues for the opposite prediction: liking for the boring task would be low in the $20 condition because the participant experiences little or no dissonance about lying to the female subjects in this situation--the participant reasons that the $20 was a sufficient amount to justify lying to the female subjects.. In the $1 condition, however, cognitive dissonance should be high because most people would feel distress over telling such a lie for only one dollar. Most men did not want to be thought of as a liar. The $20 was justification for a "little white lie", therefore did not feel any distress, however those who only received one dollar began to change the way they looked at the task. Did these men want to be known as someone who would lie for a dollar? Absolutely not. Comments would then be heard from these men to the tune of "...actually what I told the girl was true...the experiment was a lot of fun." These students had changed their attitudes toward the task of sorting spools to bring it into line with their behavior. Essentially, the participants in the one dollar condition saw the task in a more favorable light AFTER they lied than before they lied.

Hypothesis 1: Selective exposure prevents dissonance.

Dr. Festinger states that people will avoid information or situations that will likely increase