Experiments Demonstrating Induced Cognitive Dissonance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance


//
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE is a psychological term describing the uncomfortable tension that may 
result from having two conflicting thoughts at the same time, or from engaging in behavior 
that conflicts with one's beliefs, or from experiencing apparently conflicting phenomena.

In simple terms, it can be the filtering of information that conflicts with what you already 
believe, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce your beliefs.
...

The theory of cognitive dissonance states that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving 
force that compels the mind to ACQUIRE or INVENT NEW THOUGHTS or BELIEFS, or to MODIFY 
EXISTING BELIEFS, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. 
Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive. Some of these have examined 
how beliefs often change to match behavior when beliefs and behavior are in conflict.
...

Justification

Justification is the result of acting against set beliefs. The relative strengths of the 
forces, external and internal, play a large role in whether or not belief change is 
experienced. This is done in order to dampen the side effects of cognitive dissonance.


Overjustification

The phenomena of not experiencing a belief change when forced to act against one's beliefs 
with high external justification.


Insufficient justification

The phenomena of experiencing a belief change when forced to act against one's beliefs with 
low external justification.
...

Induced compliance studies


Origins and one of the first experiments testing the theory

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious 
and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns and, another one, putting 
spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, refilling it with spools, and so on. Participants 
rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told 
the experiment was over and they could leave. This is an example of an induced compliance 
study.

However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a 
needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the participant 
was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) 
that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and 
engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, 
and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.

When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks later, those in the $1 group rated them more 
positively than those in the $20 group and control group. This was explained by Festinger 
and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. Experimenters theorized that people 
experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions "I told someone that the task 
was interesting", and "I actually found it boring". When paid only $1, students were 
forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other 
justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external 
justification for their behavior. Behavior internalization is only one way to explain the 
subject's ratings of the task. The research has been extended in later years. It is now 
believed that there is a conflict between the belief that "I am not a liar", and the 
recognition that "I lied". Therefore, the truth is brought closer to the lie, so to speak, 
and the rating of the task goes up.

The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient 
justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about 
the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by CHANGING THEIR ATTITUDE. 
This process allows the subject to genuinely believe that the tasks were enjoyable.

Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to lie 
without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by CONVINCING 
THEMSELVES OF THE FALSEHOOD, rather than telling a bald lie.

This study has been criticized, on the grounds that being paid twenty dollars may have 
aroused the suspicion of some participants. In subsequent experiments, two common 
alternative methods of "inducing dissonance" were used. In one, experimenters used 
counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people were paid varying amounts of money 
(e.g., one or ten dollars) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own. 
The other method was to ask subjects to rate a number of different objects according to 
their desirability. The subject is then offered a choice between two objects s/he had 
rated equally, with the knowledge that choosing any one of the two would mean 
"missing out" on the possible positive features of the unchosen object, thus inducing 
dissonance.


Forbidden Toy Study

In a later experiment Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) viewed cognitive justification to 
forced compliance in children.

The experimenter would question the child on a set of toys to gauge which toys the children 
liked the most and which they found the least tempting. The experimenter then chose a toy 
that the child really liked, put them in a room with said toy and left the room. Upon 
leaving the room the experimenter told half the children that there would be a severe 
punishment if they played with the toy and told the other half that there would be a 
moderate punishment.

Later, when the punishment, whether severe or moderate, was removed, the children in the 
moderate punishment condition were less likely to play with the toy, even though now it had 
no repercussion.

When questioned, the children in the moderate condition EXPRESSED MORE OF A DISINTEREST 
IN THE TOY than would be expected towards a toy that they had initially ranked high in 
interest. Alternatively, the desirability of the toy went up for the children in the 
severe punishment condition.

This study laid out the EFFECT of OVERJUSTIFICATION and INSUFFICIENT JUSTIFICATION on 
cognition.

In overjustification, the personal beliefs and attitudes of the person do not change because 
they have a good external reason for their actions. The children threatened with the severe 
punishment had a good external reasoning for not playing with the toy because they knew that 
they would be badly punished for it. However, they still wanted the toy, so once the 
punishment was removed they were more likely to play with it. Conversely, the children who 
would get the moderate punishment displayed insufficient justification because they had to 
justify to themselves why they did not want to play with the toy since the external motivator, 
the degree of punishment, was not strong enough by itself. As a result, they CONVINCED 
THEMSELVES that the toy was not worth playing with, which is why even when the punishment 
was removed they still did not play with the toy.
//