PSY 320:

Attitudes
Lecture 4:
Consistency & Dissonance
Dr. William Ryan
 Lecture 7: Overview

Self-Perception Theory

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

When Dissonance Happens

The Role of Self in Dissonance

Attitudes & Behaviour

ATTITUDES

BEHAVIOUR
Self-Perception Theory
 Self-Perception Theory
(Bem, 1972)
• When our attitudes are weak or ambiguous, we
discern our own attitudes by examining our
behaviour
– Provided we are engaging in the behaviour
voluntarily
The “foot in the door technique”
• Someone asks you to to something (small) that
you agree to do…
– Donate $1 to a charity
– Crash at your place for one night
– Watch their dog for a day

• And then they make a larger request…

– Donate $25 to a charity
– Stay at your place for a month
– Watch their dog for a week
The “foot in the door technique”
• You become more likely to say “yes” to this larger
request than if had they made the large request
directly. Why?

• Self-perception:
– Provided that you agreed to the first request
voluntarily, and that it meant something to you, you
will infer that you must have an action-consistent
attitude
The “foot in the door technique”
– Donate $1 to a charity “I like supporting this charity”
– Crash at your place for one night “I like helping this
friend”
– Watch their dog for a day “I like watching this dog”

– Donate $25 to a charity

– Stay at your place for a month
– Watch their dog for a week
The “foot in the door technique”
(Sherman, 1980)
• Called up Bloomington residents and
asked if they would, hypothetically,
volunteer to spend 3 hours collecting
for the American Cancer Society
(ACS)
• Three days later, someone else called and asked
whether they would actually like to help collect
donations
• Those who had been asked (and agreed to) the
hypothetical scenario were 700% more likely to
agree to help than those asked directly!
Introducing Cognitive
Dissonance Theory
 Cognitive Dissonance

• Cognitive Dissonance:
an unpleasant state
caused by people’s
awareness of an
inconsistency between
cognitions.

Leon Festinger (1957)

Dissonant Cognitions Example

Thought #1: Smoking is bad for me.

Thought #2: I smoke cigarettes.

Dissonant Cognitions Example
Thought #1: Climate change is a major
concern.

Thought #2: I don’t recycle at home.

 Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Dissonance

Dissonance is Feeling
about Discomfort
resolving
inconsistency
Motivated to
Reduce
Dissonance
 Reducing Dissonance
Change a •“Climate change isn’t
cognition or happening” or “I will
behaviour start recycling”

•“My area doesn’t have a

Add a cognition recycling centre anyway”

Alter •“Recycling doesn’t have

importance of that big of an impact
cognition anyway”
 Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
• [Link]
=0s&list=PLzT1lhy4tHMkWU9viROuGs3rPb6hiFIyY&in
dex=55
Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

– Participants performed boring knob-turning task

– Then asked to motivate another participant
– Paid either $1 or $20

14
How enjoyable was the

12
10
8
task?

6
4
2
0
Control Participants Participants
participants receiving $1 receiving $20
 Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

• What’s going on here?

– Participants were asked to lie
• Creates dissonance (“I think the task is boring, but I said it
was interesting”
– Those given $20 were able to justify their behaviour
– Those given $1 were not able to justify their actions,
so they felt the unpleasant tension of dissonance à to
reduce this dissonance they genuinely changed their
attitude/cognition toward the task (“it wasn’t that
bad!”)
 Reducing Dissonance
Change a
• “I actually thought the task
cognition or was pretty interesting”
behaviour

• “I know I said it was

Add a cognition interesting, but I only said that
because they gave me $20!”

Alter
importance of • “Lying isn’t really a big deal”
cognition
Dissonant Cognitions Example

Thought #1: I love Harry Potter.

Thought #2: I support trans rights.

 Reducing Dissonance
Change a •“Trans rights are not a
cognition or concern” or “I will stop
behaviour reading Harry Potter”

•“I’m not responsible for

Add a cognition what she JKR says”

Alter •“Reading the book

importance of doesn’t impact trans
cognition rights anyway”
When Dissonance
Happens
 When Dissonance Happens

1. Counter-attitudinal Behavior
2. Effort Justification
3. Making Difficult Choices
1. Counter-Attitudinal Behaviour

• Aronson & Carlsmith, 1963:

– Children told not to play with a cool toy robot
– One group of kids threatened with mild punishment
– Another group of kids threatened with severe punishment
– All children obeyed and did not play with the toy robot
– So, who liked the robot less later?
• Those threatened with the _________________
mild punishment liked the robot
less than those threatened with ___________________
severe punishment
• Mild punishment didn’t provide enough external justification for
avoiding the robot, leading to cognitive dissonance and reduced
liking for the robot
 2. Effort Justification

• When the payoff isn’t worth the effort.

• Initiation Study (Aronson & Mills, 1959)
– Female students invited to join group
– Initiation = embarrassing (or not)

High Embarrassment Low Embarrassment

Initiation Initiation

Read aloud explicit four- Just read out milder

letter words and read an words like “love” and
explicit sexual passage “petting.”
from romantic novel.
 2. Effort Justification

• When the payoff isn’t worth the effort.

• Initiation Study (Aronson & Mills, 1959)
– Female students invited to join group
– Initiation = embarrassing (or not)
– The group is actually boring

Who will like the group

more? High or low
embarrassment?
 2. Effort Justification
Thought #1: I just went through an
Thought embarrassing
#1: That experiment was totally boring.
experience.
Thought #2: This group is super boring.

Dissonance Reduction:
“The group’s actually pretty
interesting.”
(Change Cognition)
Liking of the Group 2. Effort Justification

Control Low High

Embarrassment Embarrassment
Main Point: Adjusted their liking of the group based on
high effort.
 2. Effort Justification

• Dissonance and Therapy?

• Effort & Weight Loss Study (Axsom & Cooper, 1985)

– 3 Weeks of “Mental Training”
• High Effort: difficult

• Low Effort: easy

• Control: No training
 2. Effort Justification
High Effort Low Effort Control
2

0
Weight Change

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10
After 3 Weeks 6 Months Later 1 Year Later
 3. Making Difficult Decisions

• Post-decisional dissonance: Tension that occurs

when someone has to choose between multiple
attractive options
– Choosing one means not choosing all the good things
about the other alternative(s)
 3. Making Difficult Decisions
• Brehm, 1956:
– Women asked to participate in a study on
consumer preferences
– Rated a series of small household appliances
 3. Making Difficult Decisions

• Brehm, 1956:
– Women allowed to choose 1 of 2 products as their
payment
– Key Condition: Asked to choose between two
products they had rated almost equally

Original Liking = 6.8 Original Liking = 7.0

Final Liking = 6.0 Final Liking = 7.5
 3. Making Difficult Decisions
Brehm (1956)
If someone chose the toaster (vs. blender)

Spreading
How much do you

of
Alternatives
like it?

Toaster
Blender

Pre-Choice Post-Choice
3. Making Difficult Decisions

Thought #1: Toasters have negative qualities.

Thought #2: I picked the toaster.

Dissonance Reduction:
“Those negative things aren’t that
bad”
(Change cognition)
3. Making Difficult Decisions

Thought #1: Blenders have positive qualities.

Thought #2: I gave up the blender.

Dissonance Reduction:
“Those positive things aren’t that
great.”
(Change cognition)
 3. Making Difficult Decisions
• Does dissonance take high-
level reasoning? Nah.

• M&Ms Study
• (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007)

– 3 M&Ms (all liked equally)

– Kid picks between two
– Then gets another choice:
• The third M&M vs.
• The one just rejected
 3. Making Difficult Decisions
• Does dissonance take high-
level reasoning? Nah.

• M&Ms Study Which one would

• (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007)
kids pick now?
– 3 M&Ms (all liked equally)
– Kid picks between two
– Then gets another choice:
• The third M&M vs.
• The one just rejected
3. Making Difficult Decisions
Spreading
of
How much do you like it?

Alternatives

Pre-Choice Post-Choice
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Necessary Steps
• Three conditions are necessary to produce
dissonance and for that dissonance to produce
attitude change:
1. The individual must perceive the action as
inconsistent
2. The individual must take personal responsibility for
the action
3. The individual must experience uncomfortable
physiological arousal (and attribute this arousal to the
inconsistency)
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Necessary Steps
1. The individual must perceive the action as
inconsistent:
• E.g., Choosing a product you clearly favoured over
another product would not seem at all inconsistent
• E.g., If you really did enjoy the knob-turning task,
telling the other participant you enjoyed it would not
be inconsistent
• Some inconsistencies may be “worse” than others (lead
to greater dissonance, more motivation to reduce it)
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Necessary Steps
2. The individual must take personal responsibility
for the action
• Dissonance will not occur if individuals can make an
external attribution for their actions
• Must have (at least the perception of) choice
• E.g., If they were given a large reward to lie about the
enjoyment of a task
• E.g., If they were threatened with severe punishment
not to play with an attractive toy
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Necessary Steps
3. The individual must experience uncomfortable
physiological arousal
• Numerous studies support the idea that dissonance is
experienced as an uncomfortable state of arousal
E.g., Croyle & Cooper, 1983: Measured physiological
arousal (skin conductance) while participants wrote an
essay that was either pro-attitudinal or counter-
attitudinal
• Increased physiological arousal was seen only in those
participants who believed they freely chose to write a
counterattitudinal essay
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Necessary Steps
3. The individual must attribute the arousal to their
inconsistency
• When people are provided with some other
explanation for their uncomfortable feelings, they can
explain away their dissonance and no attitude change
will occur
 Cognitive Dissonance:
The Role of Arousal
E.g., Zanna & Cooper, 1974:
– Subjects asked to to write a counterattitudinal essay
(about free speech on campus) à Given either high-
choice (“it’s up to you…”) or low choice (“you
must…”)
– All subjects given a placebo pill. One third were told
it would make them tense, one third told it would
make them relaxed, and one-third were told it would
have no effect whatsoever
 Cognitive Dissonance:
The Role of Arousal
E.g., Zanna & Cooper, 1974:
• Subjects’ agreement with banning free-speech
16

14
High Choice
12
Low Choice
10

0
Tense No Effect Relaxed
 Cognitive Dissonance or Self-
Perception?
• Key question: Is the behaviour within the
person’s latitude of rejection or latitude of
acceptance?
(Explanation based on Social Judgment Theory)

Latitude of acceptance

B B

A
Latitude of rejection
 Cognitive Dissonance:
Does it Always Lead to Attitude Change?

• No! à There are other ways to reduce dissonance

– Minimize the inconsistency by trivializing the attitude-discrepant
behaviour
– Add cognitions to justify behaviour
– Can lead to behaviour change (hypocrisy example).
– Do other things to make yourself feel better- e.g., Self-
Affirmation
• More shortly!
 Dissonance & Behaviour Change

• Sometimes dissonance can result in a change in

behaviour rather than a change in attitudes: You
may start to practice what you preach!
– E.g., Students whose hypocrisy about condom use was
made salient were more likely to report an increase in
future condom use and were more likely to actually buy
condoms when given the opportunity
The Role of Self in
Dissonance
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• Self-Consistency Model
– Dissonance caused by discrepancy between
behaviour and sense of self (e.g., personal
standards of competence and morality)
• Those who think more highly of themselves would be
more vulnerable to dissonance arousal
– Reduction of dissonance aimed at maintaining
a sense of competence and morality through
justification of the discrepant behaviour
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• Self-Affirmation (or Self Resource) Model
– E.g., Steele, 1988
– Also posits that dissonance is caused by
discrepancy between behaviour and one’s self-
concept
– However, reduction of dissonance is NOT aimed
at restoring the specific self-image threatened by the
discrepant behaviour, but at restoring the
integrity of the overall self-system
• Those who think more highly of themselves would be less
vulnerable to dissonance arousal
 Self-Affirmation
• People can also relieve dissonance by engaging
in self-affirmation: Any act that reaffirms their
positive sense of self-worth and integrity

• E.g., Steele, 1988:

– Participants either science majors or not
– Were asked to rate 10 popular albums
– Given choice to keep either 5th or 6th ranked album
– After making choice, half of the participants asked to put
on white lab coats for a second experiment
– Rank albums again
 Self-Affirmation
• E.g., Steele, 1988:
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• Self as Irrelevant (or “New Look”) Model
– E.g., Cooper & Fazio, 1984
– Posits that dissonance is caused by
discrepancy between behaviour and societal or
normative standards for behavioural conduct
• Self-esteem plays no role: Regardless of self-esteem,
most people feel uncomfortable when their behaviour
violates internalized normative standards for behaviour
– Reduction of dissonance aimed at justifying
the discrepancy with normative standard
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• A Unified Model: The Self-Standards Model
– Stone & Cooper, 2001
– All three perspectives fit together à depends on
which standards and self-cognitions are more
accessible at the time
– Dissonance can be aroused either:
• nomothetically (using normative standards)
• idiographically (using personal standards)
• Depends on what standards are more accessible
• Self esteem will only be relevant when personal standards
are involved
– What self-cognitions are most accessible?
• No self-relevant thoughts
• Positive and situation relevant self-attributes
• Positive but situation irrelevant self-attributes
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• A Unified Model: The Self-Standards Model
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• A Unified Model: The Self-Standards Model
– Stone & Cooper, 2001
– All three perspectives fit together à depends on
which standards and self-cognitions are more
accessible at the time
– Dissonance can be aroused either:
• nomothetically (using normative standards)
• idiographically (using personal standards)
• Depends on what standards are more accessible
• Self esteem will only be relevant when personal standards
are involved
– What self-cognitions are most accessible?
• No self-relevant thoughts
• Positive and situation relevant self-attributes
• Positive but situation irrelevant self-attributes
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• A Unified Model: The Self-Standards Model
 Role of Self In Dissonance
• A Unified Model: The Self-Standards Model
Self-Consistency

“New Look”

Self-Affirmation
 In Summary
How does behaviour impact attitudes?

• Through inferences we make from our behaviour

– E.g., giving money to a charity, agreeing to a
hypothetical scenario, being told we have an
increased heart rate, etc.

• Through rationalizations we make to justify our

behaviours
– E.g., since I told him the task was fun, and I have no
good reason for doing so, I must have actually
enjoyed the task
The End
Thank You!