chapter 6: dissonance and justification

ways to reduce dissonance

- change attitude - change perception - add consonant cognitions - minimize the importance of the conflict - reduce perceived choice

the seekers and Mrs. Keech

- group that believed in interplanetary communications, believe earth would perish in a flood, prayed to Mrs. Keech for salvation - the world didn't perish in a flood - instead of (common sense) convictions weakening, the failure of the prophecy strengthened their beliefs (believed their prayers saved the world)

justifying attitude for discrepant behavior

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) - the participants who were paid $1 later changed their attitudes to match their discrepant behavior (rated the experiment as more enjoyable than did the $20 group)

cognitive dissonance theory

Festinger: - we alter our attitudes because we experience tension (cognitive dissonance) between two or more conflicting thoughts - motivated to reduce this dissonance by: changing attitude (change Cognition A), changing perception of behavior (change Cognition B), or adding cognitions to justify behavior with "special circumstances" (introduce cognition C)

belief in a just world

a form of defensive attribution wherein people assume that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people - we want to perceive the world as rational, consistent,fair

external justification

a reason or an explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual (ex: receive a large reward or large punishment)

attitude discrepant behavior

behavior that clashes with previously held attitudes, the type of behavior that creates dissonance - Festinger and Carlsmith's conclusion (that contradicts the belief that big rewards produce bigger change): insufficient justification, on the flip side insufficient deterrence

postdecision dissonance

dissonance aroused after making a decision, typically reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluing the rejected alternatives ex: Brehm (1956) - asked

persuasion techniques

foot-in-the-door, door-in-the-face, low-ball

insufficient justification

if one perceives little or no justification for voluntary behavior, they feel pressure to change their attitude

insufficient deterrence

if one refrains from a desirable activity after only a mild threat, it produces an attitude change - the less severe the threatened punishment, the greater the attitude change

effort justification

principle that states if an effort is expended, then we are motivated to perceive the effort as worthwhile - Aronson & Mills (1959): "psychology of sex" group, those who expended more effort (more severe, uncomfortable initiation) liked the group more - attitude change justifies effort - ex: frat or sorority hazing, US marine corps

door-in-the-face

start with a large request before making a smaller one; initial request induces guilt, but this will backfire if the initial request if outrageous or insincere

foot-in-the-door persuasion

start with a small request before making a bigger one

internal justification

the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (one's attitude or behavior)

system justification theory

we are motivated to accept and perpetuate features of existing social arrangements, even if they are accident/arbitrary/unjust - people defend and rationalize the status quo simply because it exists

justifying difficult decisions

whenever we make difficult decisions, we feel dissonance - we rationalize the correctness of our decision by: 1) exaggerating the positive features of the chosen alternative or 2) the negative features of the alternative not chosen