PSY220 Ch3

When are dissonance effects greatest?

1. People feel personally responsible for their actions 2. People's actions conflict with a central aspect of their self-concept 3. People's actions have serious consequences and 4. the action is irreversible and the person cannot take it back When dissonance is greater, more attitudes and behaviours will change.

CHristina Salmivalli

Found "High narcissistic self-esteem" is not actual high self-esteem, rather a thin layer of defense that is self-aggrandizing and based on personal insecurities, seen in bullies.

Effect of having to suffer to get something

If we have to suffer to get something, we will likely like it more than if we didn't have to put in effort for it; and if the thing isn't good, we can bend the truth while accounting for the constraints of reality)to make it more bearable.

Psychology of inveitability

People tend to make the best of something they know is bound to happen. Deemphasizing the negative is an adaptive strategy.

Introspection

Process where people look inward and examine their thoughts, feelings, and motivations. Despite only happening ~8% of the time, gets us closer to reality- which helps us better understand, predict outcome, and control our behaviour. The less we use introspection, the more we use heuristics, which can have the side effect of bias

Victim blaming

Rooted in our need to justify ourselves and our beliefs toward those who are less fortunate and victims of terrible events. Can be avoided by expressing our own distress about their situation.

What is the best way to grow and learn from mistakes?

Should look at yourself in a nondefensive manner and accept that you messed up, and look for ways to learn from the experience to not continue to make the same mistake. The likelihood of being able to do so can be increased by: Increasing understanding of your own defensiveness and dissonance-reducing tendencies. Realizing that doing something foolish or hurtful doesn't necessarily reflect your character- that you are a foolish or cruel person, as long as I don't keep justifying what I did. Developing enough ego strength to recognize and learn from personal errors.

Patricia Pliner

Similar, when asking people to make a donation to the American Cancer Society, 46% agreed, but if they asked people a day earlier to wear a pin that advertised the fund-raising drive, and then approached them the next day, around twice as many people agreed.

Jeffry Simpson subsequent study exception?

Similarly, found that those in committed straight relationships saw opposite-sex persons as less physically and sexually attractive than those that weren't. This effect was only present for "available individuals" however; when shown people that were older or the same sex, they did not lower their attractiveness ratings. Reason: since there was no threat, there was no dissonance, and so no need to diminish their appeal.

Michael Conway and Michael Ross reducing dissonance by misremembering what things were like BEFORE we put in the effort

Students that participated in a course that was supposed to improve their study habits (but didn't actually) were asked to evaluate their study skills. To reduce the dissonance between the cognition that they had worked had to improve, and the cognition that they didn't, they misremembered how their skills were before the course; they underestimated the skills they had before started. This self-justifying behaviour explains why sometimes people that spend time and money to get something- education, in shape, etc. feel satisfied even if they don't succeed. "getting what you want by revising what you had".

Keith David and Edward Jones on justifying cruelty

Students that watched an interview of a man were then forced to tell the man a predetermined list of shortcomings he had, things that they knew would be certain to hurt him. Afterwards, students convinced themselves that the man deserved to be insulted in that way, and everything they said was true.

Inevitability of mildly bad

Vegetable example- you can reduce dissonance by simply making the best out of what is going to happen.

Pyramid metaphor

You start at the top, and every time you have to make a choice you branch off, creating dissonance and motivation to justify your decision in order to reduce it. By the time you're at the bottom, you're far apart from others who faced the same decisions as you, and will have convinced yourself your path was the correct one.

External justification? Ex

A person's justifying their dissonant behaviour through the situation/environment. When a S/O wears something you don't like, them wearing it is dissonant with you not wanting them to wear it and not saying anything. Dissonance is reduced, however, by the cognition that it would hurt your S/O to tell them that, which justifies your action of not saying anything.

Cognitive dissonance

A state of tension that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent.

How does dissonance reduction differ across culture?

Although it occurs everywhere, it doesn't always take the same form. In less individualistic societies, dissonance reduction might take a more communal form- people feel dissonance when their behaviour lets down or shames OTHERS, but less so when needing to justify their own misbehaviour. Haruki Sakai found people will experience on the part of someone they are close with and will change their behaviour to conform to their dissonance-reducing friends. Also, Japanese people tended to justify their choices when they thought that others were watching them make their decision, but not when they were making their decision privately. The opposite case was found for Americans.

Example of insufficient punishment changing attitude, and hence behaviour

Aronson and Merrill Carlsmith Half of a group of children were threatened with a mild punishment for playing with toys they liked, and the other half with a severe punishment. Left to play with the toys, all of them restrained themselves, and then they were asked how much they liked the toys afterwards. Those that were threatened with mild punishment liked their toys less; they lacked enough external justification for not playing with the toy, so they reduced dissonance by convincing themselves that they didn't play with the toy because they didn't actually like it. Those that were threatened with severe punishment found the toy just as appealing or more, because they had the external justification for not playing with the toys (which reduced their dissonance).

Necessary conditions for dissonance

Arousal (physiological): you feel the discomfort of dissonance (sweating) Attribution: You attribute the cause of the discomfort to your own behaviours/attitudes

Judson Mills cheating

Asked sixth-graders their attitudes on cheating, and then after a test in which some cheated and others didn't, when asked about their feelings on cheating, those that cheated were more lenient towards cheating and those that resisted had a harsher attitude towards cheating.

Three big concepts

Attention, perception/interpretation, introspection

How does dissonance affect your beliefs after you make a tough decision? Ex? (Irrevocable)

Before you make a tough decision, such as choosing what university to attend, you typically do a lot of research that is as objective as possible, finding pros and cons to each of your options. Once you make a decision, however, your behaviour will change, and you no longer seek objective information about the choices you had. Once you're at the university, you will likely hear good things from the school and learn much more in-depth about all the great opportunities it provides. On the contrary, you will spend little time thinking about the other universities, and will become sure that you made the correct choice. This is because there is dissonance when you make a choice: the university you chose still has negative traits and the other choices had positive traits, and this is dissonant with the cognition that you made the choice you did. To reduce dissonance, you seek out exclusively positive info about the university you chose and avoid negative info about it. Another example used in lecture is deciding between dating two people exclusively. Before choice, it is difficult to make a choice and there is low confidence about either being the right one. Afterwards, the rating of person you choose goes up, and rating of person you didn't goes down- SPREADING OF ALTERNATIVES Same effect can happen when choosing from 2 people in a police lineup. When you can change your decision, your confidence is low in either option, but afterwards, you are 100% confident you have the right person in court- confidence is correlated with convincing others but not with accuracy.

Perception

Brain's interpretation of raw sensory data our brains piece together: What's in our sensory field (what triggered neurons) What was just there (the neuron that was just active, can serve to prime) What we remember from our past (what we perceive to be related, could be right or wrong) and then organize this data into meaningful concepts.

How can world leaders avoid falling into the self-justification trap?

Bringing in skilled advisors that are outside their inner circle, people that are not caught up in the need to reduce dissonance that was created by the leader's past decisions- a reason why Abraham Lincoln had people that disagreed with him in his cabinet to best end slavery.

Theory of cognitive dissonance

By Leon Festinger- theory of human motivation. When someone has cognitive dissonance, it is unpleasant, so they are motivated to reduce it. This is done by changing one or both cognitions to render them more compatible (consonant) with each other or by adding more cognitions that help bridge the gap between the original cognitions.

How to deal with dissonance:

Change the attitude/behaviour (stop smoking) Remove a dissonant cognition (think that it might not be that bad for you, remembering a personal anecdote of a smoker that still lived a long life) Adding a consonant cognition (I just need it for a couple months to get through this situation)

Inevitability of really bad for climate change

Climate change deniers see it as a matter of "everyone's going to die, but you should do XYZ to not die". But they might think those efforts are futile and won't do anything, so they don't do XYZ as they think they'll die anyway. They justify their actions by saying the threat doesn't exist in the first place, using anecdotal info to back their claims. To fix it, we should stop trying to scare people and start convincing them they have more control than they think they do.

How does making a decision produce dissonance?

Cognitions about any negative aspects of the choice taken are dissonant with having chosen it, and cognitions about the positive aspects of the choice that wasn't chosen are dissonant with having not chosen it.

Dennis Johnson and Caryl Rusbult

College students were shown pictures of individuals of the opposite sex and were asked to rate the attractiveness of the applicants + how much they thought they would enjoy a date with them. Results were that the more heavily committed the students were to their current romantic partners, the less attractive they found potential new partners.

Implication of justifying cruelty by criticizing victims (in war)?

Dehumanization, a universal phenomenon where cultures tend to call their enemies cruel names in war time (Japanese as Japs in WW2). Method of reducing dissonance- "I am a good person, but we are killing these people, so they must deserve everything we are doing, they are less than human". This dehumanization makes it easier to hurt "subhumans" and increases the likelihood of continuing hurting them in the future.

Impact of the self-concept on dissonance?

Dissonance is most painful, and we have a greater motivation to reduce it when our self-concept is threatened, when we do something that goes against our view of ourselves. Students asked to not be a cheater cheated less than those that were asked not to cheat; "don't be a cheater" violates the self-concept of being honest.

Using dissonance theory to encourage condom use (aronson)

During the AIDS epidemic, while nearly everyone knew why wearing condoms was a good idea, no one did it regardless. Men that were asked to compose an argument for why to use condoms every single time and then record to be presented to high-school students as part of a sex ed class, were made mindful of their own past failures to use condoms before they made the speech (making a list of the circumstances that they failed to use condoms). This act of being made mindful of their own inability to use condoms was dissonant with what they were saying in their speech- they were made aware of their own hypocrisy in preaching a certain behaviour to high school students that they themselves weren't following. (hypocrisy paradigm). To reduce dissonance, people started practicing what they were preaching.

Physiological evidence in support that dissonance is universal?

Eddie Harmon-Kones used fMRI tech to monitor neural activity in specific areas of the brain while people experienced various kinds of dissonance. Highly specific areas within the prefrontal cortex (largely involved in planning and decision-making) were activated. In a study where people processed dissonant or consonant info about their preferred presidential candidate, Drew Westen found that the reasoning areas of the brain almost nearly shut down when someone was confronted with dissonant info, while the areas responsible for emotion (pleasure) lit up when consonance was restored. -People sort information until it falls in a way they like, and then pay rewards them by activating areas involved in pleasure.

Attention

First rule of anything is to PAY ATTention, as if you don't, you use heuristics which can lead to biases. There is a continuum of 0-100% of attention you can give. Divided into two routes: Central- Paying attention, weighing pros and cons with a high quantity and quality of arguments. Peripheral- Can be persuaded by emotion Not 100% of either

Steps of cognitive dissonance theory

First you do a behaviour, such as cheating on an exam, and you understand that you were personally responsible for that action. This creates dissonance and discomfort, which creates physiological arousal, such as sweating, which you attribute to the behaviour of cheating. Because the cognition that you are a good person is dissonant with the cognition that you cheated, there will be an attitude change (such as believing cheating wasn't that bad) to justify your action.

Example of dissonance in history

For Jews that experienced high levels of dissonance that decided to sit tight (and risk being sent to a camp)during WW2 instead of trying to escape, they might ignore a report that people that were sent to the camp were killed in order to reduce dissonance- this could have gotten them killed. George W. Bush wanted to believe that Iraq possessed WMDs, and so interpreted ambiguous reports as evidence of such, despite being contradicted by other evidence. When they couldn't immediately find any WMDs, they continued trying because they faced high dissonance, seeking justification for the decision to start a war. When they accepted that they couldn't find any, they added new cognitions to reduce dissonance- the actual mission was to liberate the nation from a cruel dictator. Despite being insufficient justification for the general public, it was enough to deceive the government into believing that invading Iraq was worth it.

Geoffrey Cohen

Found African American children got higher grades if at the beginning of the school year, their self-esteem was raised by assignments that made them focus on their strengths and values. Should be cautious about generalizing these results, however, as this effect might not work if self-esteem is risen through artificial methods or if the person's self-esteem is not grounded in reality.

Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser

Found that when asking homeowners to put an obtrusive "Drive Carefully" sign in people's front yards, only 17% complied, but when a different group of residents were first "softened up" by an experimenter that asked them to sign a petition for safe driving, which nearly all residents signed, 55% of people agreed to the sign later on. When people commit themselves to something in a small way, they are more likely to commit themselves further in the future.

How to change someone's attitude?

Get them to do or say something against their attitude, and underpay them for it.

Would you like a grasshopper (that you find disgusting) more if given by a friend or someone you didn't like?

Going against common sense, someone you didn't like. Your cognition of finding the grasshopper bad is dissonant with having just eaten one, but when a friend gives it to you, you have enough external justification for having eaten it. When you lack that external justification, you reduce dissonance by changing your attitude to thinking it wasn't too bad. Phillip Zimbardo found that people liked them better when people that were mean gave it to them vs. friendly.

Leon Festinger and J. Merrill Carlsmith

Got students to do boring tasks such as ravelling and unravelling thread and turning screws a quarter turn for an hour straight. They were then asked to lie to someone about how interesting and enjoyable the task was, and were offered either $20 or $1 to do so. When asked how much they enjoyed the experiment, those that were offered $20 rated it as dull, which was expected, since the tasks were dull. Those that were paid $1, however, rated the task as enjoyable. Reason was those that received $20 had enough external justification for lying and were able to tell the lie without needing to believe it, whereas when people were only given $1, they lacked enough external justification, and sought internal justification by changing their attitudes to believe what they were saying. This result is the "saying is believing" paradigm, because people start to believe their own lies.

Narcissism

Having a false sense of superiority to others

Do high self-esteem or low self-esteem people feel the greatest dissonance?

High. Because when they behave in way against their high opinion of themselves, they feel greater dissonance than those with lower levels of self-esteem, and will WORK HARDER to reduce it. Those with low self-esteem that do a bad thing face less dissonance because their cognition that they messed up is more consonant with their concept, which is the cognition that they're not that good of a person.

How might the mechanism of dissonance theory about changing attitudes affect how we experience basic physiological drives?

If we are put in situations where we are deprived of food or water, or voluntarily put in pain, our cognition regarding these pains are dissonant with the cognition of volunteering to be in that situation without much return, and so to reduce dissonance, you convince yourself that the pains aren't that bad. Philip Zimbardo subjected half of his participants to a high-dissonance condition in which people voluntarily committed to shocks (little external justification). The other half had low dissonance, no choice in the mater, and lots of external justification. People in high-dissonance reported feeling less pain, and even their physiological response was less intense and interfered with their tasks less. Jack Brehm found similar results with deprivation of food and water, and it wasn't just psychological; when all the participants were allowed to eat/drink again, those in high-dissonance condition consumed less food/water than those in low-dissonance.

Alternative to dehumanization

If we simply express our negative feelings such as disgust, shock, and terror about the victim's situation, we can become more understanding and not have the need to dehumanize them. In an experiment by Kent Harber, participants watched a scene in which a woman got assaulted unwillingly, but was also drinking heavily, wearing revealing clothing, etc. Told to write an evaluation about what had happened, half the participants had to suppress their feelings write only factual details, while the other group were able to freely express their deepest feelings. A week later, they evaluated the woman, and the more viewers acknowledged/express distress, the less they blamed the victim. On the contrary, those that suppressed their feelings more readily blamed the woman.

What is the role of dissonance when you decide whether or not to cheat on an exam?

If you cheat, your cognition that you are a moral person is dissonant with your cognition that you committed an immoral act. If you don't cheat, your cognition of wanting to get a good grade is dissonant with your cognition that you didn't take an opportunity to ensure a good grade. If you decide on cheating, you reduce dissonance by minimizing the negative aspects of your actions and maximizing the positive; cheating isn't immoral if no one gets hurt, anybody would do it, and so it's just part of human nature, people who cheat should not be severely punished, etc. If you decide to not cheat, you reduce dissonance by changing your attitude about the morality of the action in the opposite direction; it was not worth it to cheat and get a good grade as cheating is one of the worst things someone can do, people who cheat should be punished severely, etc. Once a decision is made, the attitude towards cheating will quickly diverge due to the consequences of their decisions.

How does the level of justification change behaviour now and in the future?

If you want someone to act a certain way just once, while you are watching them, then the largest incentive/most severe punishment will be the most effective. But if you want someone to develop a set of values or beliefs that they will follow in the future even when you aren't there, you should offer the smallest incentive possible that will still get them to do the behaviour you seek. They will change their mind by themselves.

COME UP WITH EXAMPLES NOT USED IN CLASS

Instead of smoking, recycling (I don't recycle vs. not recycling is bad)

Relevant and consistent cognitions

Irrelevant: not related to each other Relevant- Consistent: Good w/ good (go along) (Consonant) Inconsistent: Good w/ bad (contradict eachother) Inconsistency creates dissonance.

Is dissonance universal? Implication?

It has been shown to exist everywhere it has been tested. It extends across fields, even to primatology, where monkeys that were offered a choice between two boxes of treats stayed with the one they picked, even when another option came along. Suggests that there is an evolutionary benefit to post-decision dissonance- let out ancestors stick with a tried-and-true option and reject options that were untested, which could've been dangerous.

Is dissonance reduction conscious? What does this mean?

It is a largely subconscious process; we don't actively decide to reduce dissonance. This is what makes it so effective, but also forgettable- we don't realize that it protects us from possible pain in the future.

How does the inevitability of something affect your attitude

Jack Brehm found that children that were forced to eating a vegetable they didn't like rate the vegetable as being not as bad when they were told they would have to eat much more of it in the future. Cognition of it being bad was dissonant with having to eat it a lot in the future.

Does cognitive dissonance occur in children?

Likely yes, even at age 3

Types of external justification

Monetary gain, forced requirement, praise, desire to please, punishment if you don't do something

The clash of which two fundamental motives results in cognitive dissonance?

Motivation to be right, which motivates us to pay attention to what others are doing and to listen to the advice of people with trust + Our want to believe we ARE right, wise, and good

Why can the self-justification trap escalate, as it did in Vietnam?

Once a small commitment is made, the behaviour needs to be justified, and so attitudes are changed, new commitments are made as a result, and the cycle continues. It is a larger-scale version of the foot-in-the-door technique.

Roy Baumeister, Brad Bushman, and Keith Campbell

Participants wrote an essay and gave it to another person to criticize. After receiving the criticism, they were allowed to express hostility by blasting a noise at their partners. The people who blasted it the loudest also scored the highest on measures of self-esteem and narcissism. When narcissists are threatened by criticism, they are hostile to their critics in an attempt to restore their threatened self-image.

David Glass ^^ similar study but effect on self-esteem

People that considered themselves good people were asked to deliver electric shocks to other people. They criticized their victims as a result of causing them pain. This result was strongest among people with HIGH SELF-ESTEEM: if you have low self-esteem, you might think you're always hurting other people's feelings, so when you cause someone else to suffer, it doesn't cause as much dissonance, so you don't need to convince yourself they deserved it. Ironically, if you think you're a great person, if you cause someone pain, you have convince yourself that they were bad people because "nice people like you" don't hurt innocent people.

What does Dissonance theory predict about listening to arguments about a topic that you have a strong position on? Why? Ex. in study?

Predicts that you will remember the plausible arguments that agrees with your position, and the implausible arguments that agree with the opposing position. Despite rational behaviour being listening only to the plausible agreements from both sides, it creates dissonance when we hear silly arguments for our side and smart one for the other (explain), so we try to ignore them. Study by Charles Lord, Lee Ross, and Mark Lepper found that when Stanford students were presented 2 articles that presented a side on the death penalty, instead of being rational and moving closer to the other side, the students distorted the opposing article to their view, finding flaws, while defending the one that supported their beliefs. Illuminates the state polarized political discourse in America today, shows how some people will never be convinced despite facts.

Entrapment

Process by which people make a small decision, justify it, and find that over time they are increasingly committed to a certain belief or activity. This process is the reason for the viability of the foot-in-the-door technique, which can be used to convince others to commit to something, which can be used for socially admirable goals, but also negative ones as well.

Dehumanization

Process of seeing victims as nonhumans, lowering inhibitions against aggressive actions and making continued aggression easier and more likely.

Foot-in-the-door technique

Process of using small favours to encourage people to agree to larger requests in the future. Effective because having done the smaller favour provides justification in advance for agreeing to do the larger favour.

First step to correcting bias

Recognize how prone we are to rationalizing and self-justification. Then, through paying attention, perception, we can recognize how prone we are cognitive biases, realize what bias is affecting us in a particular situation, and then use introspection to understand why we are acting in a certain way due to the bias, which helps us to control and predict outcomes from our behaviour, which leads us to being happy.

Why do heavy smokers that know smoking is bad relapse after initially quitting?

Rick Gibbons found that they reduced dissonance by convincing themselves smoking isn't as bad as they originally thought.

Example of cognitive dissonance theory for smoker

Sally has 2 cognitions that are dissonant: I smoke + smoking is bad for you. Most efficient way to reduce dissonance: Give up smoking- Smoking is bad + I do not smoke is consonant. Changing "smoking is bad" cognition: Make light of evidence that smoking is bad, find smart people that also smoke, delude herself into thinking its not too bad. Adding new cognition: Enhance the value of smoking by saying that although it'll make her life shorter, it'll make it more enjoyable. Sally justifies her behaviour by cognitively minimizing its danger or exaggerating its importance, in an effort to reduce dissonance.

Jonathan Freedman on insufficient punishment. Implication?

Some children were threatened with mild punishment to not play with a highly desirable toy, others with severe. Weeks later, when given the choice, most of the mildly threatened didn't play with the robot, while the severely did. Severe threats are not as effective at inhibiting subsequent behaviour, while mild threats are.

Lowballing

Strategy that often works in which a salesman offers a product at a very low cost and the customer agrees to, after which the salesman claims that the price was a mistake and consequently raises the price, under the bet that the customer will continue to make the purchase at the higher price.

David Mettee and Aronson cheating and self-esteem implication?

Students that had their self-esteem lowered by a personality test cheated more in a gambling game than those who had their self-esteem raised, with the control group that received nothing falling in between. Implication: Parents and teachers should realize that by affecting students' self-esteem, they can increase either honest or dishonest behaviour.

Arthur R. Cohen on attitude change

Students who believed police behaviour in a protest was bad were asked to write an essay in support of the police, and those that were paid less linearly had more support for the police later on.

System justification

Studies by John Jost, the phenomenon by which people who are born into the highest levels of society that have the greatest wealth and power, justify their position through the belief that they are entitled to it due to their superior abilities and native talent (in reality they were just born in the right environment), whereas poor and struggling individuals are simply unable or unmotivated to succeed.

Self-Justification

Tendency to justify one's actions in order to maintain one's self-esteem. We do it because our motivation for self-enhancement makes us want to look good to ourselves and others, despite the better motivation to follow being accuracy; we should try to understand the situation and admit to any faults we make head-on, learning from it for the future.

Assumption about Aronson reformulation of dissonance theory?

That people want to preserve the idea that they are good people. If people did something cruel or thoughtless, their self-esteem becomes threatened because it make them feel that they are in fact cruel and thoughtless.

What condition limits the justification of cruelty?

The ability for the victim to retaliate. If the victim is able and willing to retaliate, the harm-doer feels that equity will be restored and therefore they have no need to justify their cruelty by criticizing the victim. Experiment by Ellen Berscheid found that when people that shocked other students were told the other students would have an opportunity to shock them back, they belittled their victims less because they had less dissonance to reduce and therefore no need to convince themselves that the person deserved it.

What happens when you have either directly done something terrible, or found out about something terrible that happened to an innocent person?

The action undoubtedly happened, so you can not reduce dissonance by convincing yourself the action wasn't bad or didn't happen. Therefore, you do it by convincing yourself the victim deserved what happened to them, because they did something to bring it upon themselves or they were a bad person.

Why do psychopaths fairly immune from dissonance caused by behaving poorly?

Their cognition that they treated someone badly is consonant with "I'm really good at manipulating other people".

What can happen if someone attempts to achieve consonance by lying?

They can start to believe their own lies- self-deception.

Applications of hypocrisy paradigm

This type of self-persuasion technique could be used for anything that we want people to do more of that they already know is a good thing- exercising, recycling, etc.

Robert Sapolsky

Under a belief that injection of testosterone could slow down aging for men, countless men would get painful daily injections, and they reported great results- not because of scientific basis, but because they went through so much, that there was an incentive to feel effects (placebo effect)

Judson Mills and Aronson initiation study

University women who volunteered to join a group that would discuss the psych of sex were forced to go through a "screening process" to see if they could discuss sex openly. The IV was the severity of initiation, with a third being a control group that had no initiation, a third mild, and a third severe. They then watched a "live" discussion (control variable that was pre-recorded) and were asked how much they liked the group (DV). mild= sexual but not obscene severe= obscene Those that received severe initiation faced put in so much effort that they convinced themselves the discussion was worthwhile and interesting. Harold Gerard and Grover Mathewson did a similar experiment except the initiations were electric shocks varying in sinfulness, and found the same results.

How do cult leaders such as Jim Jones lead people to do things like the mass suicide?

Using the foot-in-the-door phenomenon, by using a chain of small but increasing commitments that force followers to do larger and larger acts to justify the previous one. While each step is not large by itself, the last step is completely different from the first.

Why do we find it difficult to apologize even when we want to?

We are too busy justifying our actions in an attempt to reduce dissonance. We have to take a step back and recognize our rationalizing/justifying behaviour and learn from our mistakes, instead of concentrating on protecting our egos. Without doing this, we will never grow.

What does dissonance theory predict about changing attitudes?

We being to believe the things we say if we don't have enough external justification for them.

Sometimes our motivation to be right and our motivation to believe we are right work in same direction, but what does cognitive dissonance predict?

We often seek information but then simply ignore it if we don't like what we find. Explains that human thinking is not typically rational, rather rationalizing- in reducing dissonance we are too caught up convincing ourselves we are right that our maladaptive behaviour prevents us from learning important facts and finding solutions.

Justification of effort

When a person VOLUNTARILY goes through a difficult or painful experience in order to attain some goal or object, thus making that goal or object more attractive

Daniel Gilbert on irrevocability hypothesis

When asking students that had taken photos how much they liked the one they had chosen between two, students that had the option of changing photos liked their choice less than people that had to make a final decision. Once a decision is irrevocable, people change their attitudes to make themselves feel good about the choice they made.

Internal justification?

When there is not enough justification from the situation, we create internal justification, the reduction of dissonance by changing our attitude/behaviour to be more consistent with what we did.

When does self-justification happen? Ex.

When there is not sufficient reason in the environment to behave/feel the way you do; you create reasons. Jamuna Prasad found that when an earthquake happened, people in the vicinity that were not in danger spread rumours of impending doom- an explanation is that they were frightened but lacked ample justification for their fear, so they invented their own. Durganand Sinha did a study on rumours in a similar situation but on the people who experienced the disaster directly, and consequently though they were scared, they had sufficient justification, and so didn't spread scary rumours.

Robert Knox and James Inkster on importance of irrevocability

When they intercepted people on their way to making bets for a horse race, people were much less sure of their bets compared to when people had just finished placing their bets, despite nothing changing except the finality of their decisions.

How is cognitive dissonance theory related to religious groups and political parties? Ex.

When we have a strong allegiance to a group, we are capable of coming up will all sorts of distortions to evidence when our loyalties are challenged by facts. Lenny Bruce found that in the 1960 presidential race, Nixon fans would always back Nixon and vice versa regardless of what happened at the debates.

Value-expressive attitudes

When you're deeply committed to something (political stance), it's hard to see another point of view as it could damage our self-concept. We typically use self-deception (downplaying correct but arousal inducing attitude elements- smoking isn't that bad), belief perseverance and confirmation bias to maintain our beliefs and resolve dissonance. We only look at elements that prove our case, and ignore/don't look for those that counter it (confirmation bias) When we are shown evidence that proves us wrong, we ignore it (belief perseverance)

Inevitability of really bad

With the major earthquake that will hit California, it is difficult to deemphasize the negative as the negative is death. Darrin Lehman and Shelley Taylor found only 5% of UCLA students had taken any safety precautions, and only a third knew basic strategies (to get under a table). Students in seismically unsafe residence halls had prepared less, and tended not to think about the possibility of an earthquake at all- it is hard to justify living in an unsafe area if you think it might be unsafe, so dissonance causes you to just deny that an earthquake is even a potential. How we react is largely based on how in control we feel- if we don't feel in control and believe that attempting to do preventative measures is futile, doing so only creates more dissonance. In such situations, we will likely justify not taking safety precautions by denying the probability of a potential disaster or vastly underestimating the magnitude of the event.

Jack Brehm kitchen appliance study

Women rated appliances based on their appeal, and were allowed to choose between two that they rated equally to take home. After they chose one, they retroactively rated the appeal of it higher and decreased the rating of the appliance she didn't choose. People emphasize the positive attributes of their choice and de-emphasize the negative attributes, and vice-versa.

Hypocrisy paradigm on water conservation

Women that showered in public shower rooms were asked to sign a petition to take shorter showers, which was then posted on a public sign. They were then asked to think of all the times that they had recently failed to take short showers. This created dissonance by showing them the difference between what they were preaching vs. practicing, and those that were made aware of their hypocrisy took shorter showers.

John Darley and Ellen Berscheid

Women volunteered to discuss their sexual behaviour/standards with another women they didn't know. They were given 2 folders describing different women, which had both positive and negative characteristics. If they were told that they would have to be talking with the person in folder A, they found that person to be much more appealing than the person in folder B. The opposite was true for those that were told they would have to talk with B. The inevitability of having to spend time with another person enhances that person's positive aspects and/or deemphasizes their negative aspects.

How did Robert Cialdini demonstrate that sometimes people feel dissonance (and are motivated to reduce it) even when they can get out of a decision (not irrevocable)?

Working as a car salesman, he found that when he lowballed the customer, and exciting the customer into sign a check for the down payment, only to tell them there was an error and the actual cost is higher than the cost the customer had originally anticipated, more people will continue with the deal than if the final price was the original asking price, despite the reason for purchasing the car from that salesman (bargain lowball price) is gone. Notes: 1. Even though it is still reversible, the signing of the check for a down payment is an implicit commitment 2. That commitment triggered the anticipation of the pleasant experience of leaving with the new car; to not have that pleasance, there would be dissonance and disappointment 3. Despite the final price being higher than what the salesman originally said, it is only slightly higher than other dealerships, and since all the forms are already filled out, the customer may feel that it's not worth the hassle to reverse their decision.

Irrevocability

key characteristic-Increases dissonance, as well as the motivation to reduce it.