AAQ: COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Introduction

Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by Leon Festinger, posits that individuals experience psychological discomfort when their beliefs or attitudes are inconsistent with their actions. This theory suggests that people are motivated to reduce this discomfort by either changing their attitudes or rationalizing their behavior. Festinger and Carlsmith's study, "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance," explores these processes through an experimental approach designed to induce cognitive dissonance and observe its effects on attitude change. The researchers hypothesize that participants who are paid insufficiently to perform a task that they privately find uninteresting (thus having insufficient external justification) will experience greater cognitive dissonance compared to those who are paid sufficiently. Specifically, they predict that participants in the insufficient justification condition (paid $1) will report greater attitude change and increased subjective enjoyment of the task compared to those in the sufficient justification condition (paid $20).

Participants

5

The participants were undergraduate students from a university setting, typical for psychological experiments conducted during that time period. The exact number of participants is not specified in the study, but undergraduate students are commonly used due to their availability and willingness to participate in research studies. Participants were likely recruited through campus announcements, posters, or other forms of advertisement within the university. They were likely compensated for their time and participation, although the specifics of compensation are detailed within the experimental conditions (i.e., $1 or $20). The participants were drawn from a university background and involved members predominately from a young, white background. Participants were deceived during the study but received a full debriefing following the conclusion of the study.

Method

Festinger and Carlsmith employed a controlled laboratory experiment to investigate cognitive dissonance. Participants were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: insufficient justification or sufficient justification. The study utilized undergraduate students from a university setting as participants. The exact number of participants is not specified, but they were likely recruited through campus announcements or other forms of advertisement.

10

● Insufficient Justification Condition:

○ Participants in this condition were paid a small amount of money ($1) to perform a series of

boring and monotonous tasks (turning pegs on a pegboard).

○ After completing the tasks, participants were asked to tell another participant (who was

actually an accomplice of the researchers) that the tasks were enjoyable and interesting.

15

○ This condition aimed to create cognitive dissonance, as participants were incentivized to lie

about enjoying tasks they found boring, with minimal external justification (low payment).

● Sufficient Justification Condition:

○ Participants in this condition were paid a larger amount of money ($20) to perform the same boring tasks.

20

○ Similarly, they were asked to tell the same lie about the tasks being enjoyable to the same accomplice.

○ This condition provided sufficient external justification for the behavior, as participants were paid a higher amount to perform the tasks.

The participant’s reported attitudes and subjective feelings toward the tasks they performed were measured following the conclusion of the participants’ activities in their condition. This was measured through self-reported enjoyment of the tasks after completing them and making the false statement about their enjoyment to the accomplice. Participants were told to rate their task from a scale of 1-10, with 1 being a highly undesirable task, and 10 being a highly desirable task.

25

Results and Discussion

Participants in the insufficient justification condition (paid $1) reported significantly greater enjoyment of the boring tasks compared to those in the sufficient justification condition (paid $20). Specifically, participants who were paid less to lie about enjoying the tasks experienced more cognitive dissonance. This resulted in a greater shift in their attitudes to align with their behavior, suggesting that they adjusted their beliefs to reduce the discomfort of inconsistency. Participants in the insufficient justification condition resolved dissonance by convincing themselves that the tasks were more enjoyable than they initially believed. Data from the study is displayed below, and is statistically significant. The findings have practical implications for understanding persuasion, behavior change, and decision-making in various domains. They suggest that strategies aiming to change attitudes or behaviors should consider the role of cognitive dissonance and the level of external justification provided for desired behaviors. The study acknowledged limitations, such as its reliance on a laboratory setting and student participants, which may limit generalizability to other populations or real-world contexts. Future research could explore how different forms of justification and varying levels of dissonance affect attitude change and behavior in more diverse samples.