|
|
Cognitive
Dissonance Theory
Cognitive
Dissonance Theory - Overview
Dissonance
After Decision-Making
Selective
Exposure To Information
Induced
Compliance
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Dissonance Theory
Glossary
References
Self-test
|
Induced
Compliance
Another area of dissonance concerns what happens when we
engage in behavior that is inconsistent with our attitudes or
beliefs. If I do not like someone but agree to do a favor for
that person, the potential for cognitive dissonance exists: I
do not like Fred; I agreed to give him a ride to a job
interview. A very early classic study was conducted by
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959).
They asked a subject to
perform a very boring and repetitive task, pretending that the
researchers were studying that task. Actually, they wanted to
know whether attitudes would change when subjects experienced
dissonance. After performing the boring task (turning spools
on pegs; removing spools from pegs and then putting them
back), subjects were asked to help the experimenter to
convince another subject to participate in the study they just
completed. Some of these subjects were given $1 to convince
the next subject (who was really a confederate helping the
experimenter) to agree to work at the task; others were given
$20 to talk the other “subject” into participating.
Basically, they were asked to lie and say the task was
interesting or fun when they really believed it was boring.
Afterwards, they were supposed to report how interesting they
thought the task was.
When the subjects tried to convince the “next subject”
that the task was exciting and fun, dissonance was likely to
occur: I believe the task I just did was boring; I told
someone else that task was exciting and fun. Because they were
paid different amounts of money for their behavior, they were
predicted to, and did, resolve the dissonance in different
ways. The subjects who were paid $20 could easily rationalize
their action: “I didn’t say the task was exciting because
I really believed it was fun; I said it was exciting because I
was paid $20.” The
subjects who were paid only $1 couldn’t rationalize their
behavior that way: “I didn’t lie and say it was fun for
$1; I did it because the task really was fun,” changing
their attitude. In other words, the greater the justification
($20 payment) for their counter-attitudinal behavior, the
easier that behavior was to rationalize. When the behavior
couldn’t be rationalized by the justification (payment of
only $1), the subjects were more likely to change their
attitudes toward the task. So, the key principle of induced
compliance is that the less justification provided for
performing the counter-attitudinal behavior, the more attitude
change.
If you are doing a favor someone a favor, like driving them to
a job interview when you really don’t want to, you could
experience dissonance and might change your attitudes. If
there was a really good reason (justification) for doing the
favor -- say he is your boss -- it is easy to rationalize your
behavior: “I don’t like Fred; I’m only doing him a favor
because he’s my boss.”
If there isn’t a good reason for doing the favor, you
might experience dissonance and then like Fred more than
before you did the favor: “There’s no reason why I have to
give him a ride; maybe I like Fred better than I thought.”
On the other hand, if you can get someone who doesn’t
like you to do you a favor -- without providing a strong
justification -- they might like you a little more.
|
|
|
