Cognitive Dissonance Theory Background Information Cognitive dissonance the
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Background Information Cognitive dissonance – the distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or a belief and an action Cognitive dissonance is an aversive state people want to avoid. Thus, people strive for consistency in their daily lives.
Illustrative Example: Smoking is dangerous to my health. I smoke.
Ways to Reduce Dissonance Festinger hypothesized three mental mechanisms that people can use to make sure that their actions and attitudes are in harmony. Selective exposure Postdecision dissonance Minimal justification
Selective Exposure Selective exposure – the tendency to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it is incompatible with current beliefs
Postdecision Dissonance Postdecision dissonance – strong doubts experienced after making an important, close-call decision that is difficult to reverse When people experience postdecision dissonance, they have a strong need for reassurance.
Minimal Justification Minimal justification – a claim that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior Operates under the assumption that behaviors predict attitudes, rather than attitudes predicting behavior Compliance – public conformity to another’s expectation without necessarily having a private conviction that matches the behavior
Minimal Justification: $1/$20 Experiment Undergraduate men were assigned the boring and repetitive tasks of sorting spools into sets of 12 and turning square pegs a quarter turn to the right. Counterattitudinal advocacy – publicly urging others to believe or do something that is opposite to what the advocate actually believes
Minimal Justification: $1/$20 Experiment After talking with the female student in the waiting room, participants paid $20 privately confessed that they thought the study was dull. Participants paid only $1 privately confessed that they thought the study was fun.
Theoretical Extensions Self-consistency (the rationalizing animal) Personal responsibility for bad outcomes (the new look model) Self-affirmation
Strength and Weaknesses Strength: Heurism Weakness: Falsifiability Parsimony
Theoretical Approach and Traditions Approach: Positivistic/empirical Tradition: Socio-psychological
Thank You!
- Slides: 13