* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Survey
Document related concepts
Social tuning wikipedia , lookup
Social perception wikipedia , lookup
False consensus effect wikipedia , lookup
Impression formation wikipedia , lookup
Introspection illusion wikipedia , lookup
Albert Bandura wikipedia , lookup
Implicit attitude wikipedia , lookup
Leon Festinger wikipedia , lookup
Vested interest (communication theory) wikipedia , lookup
Attitude (psychology) wikipedia , lookup
Cognitive dissonance wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Dissonance Theory One of the most fascinating approaches to understanding the process of attitude change is the theory of cognitive dissonance developed by Leon Festinger (1957). Cognitive dissonance exists whenever a person has two contradictory cognitions, or beliefs, at the same time. “I am a considerate and loyal friend” is one cognition; so is “Yesterday I repeated some juicy gossip I heard about my friend Chris.” These tow cognitions are dissonant—each one implies the opposite of the other. According to Festinger, cognitive dissonance creates unpleasant psychological tension, and this tension motivates the individual to try to resolve the dissonance in some way. Sometimes changing one’s attitude is the easiest way to reduce the discomfort of dissonance. I cannot easily change the fact that I have repeated gossip about a friend. Therefore, it is easier to change my attitude toward my friend. If I conclude that Chris is not really a friend but simply an acquaintance, then my new attitude now fits my behavior—spreading gossip about someone who is not a friend does not contradict the fact that I am loyal and considerate to those who are my friends. Similarly, one way to reduce the discomfort or guilt associated with cheating in school is to show approval of, or support for other students who engage in academic dishonesty (Storch & Storch, 2003). Discrepant behavior that contradicts an attitude does not necessarily bring about attitude change, however, because there are other ways a person can reduce cognitive dissonance. One alternative is to increase the number of consonant elements—that is, the thoughts that support one or the other dissonant cognitions. For example, I might note that the gossip I repeated was pretty interesting, that anyone who had heard it would be concerned and surprised about Chris, and that it would be only natural to discuss it with others in an effort to determine whether it was true. Now my action is less at odds with my attitude toward Chris as a friend. Another option is to reduce the importance of one or both cognitive elements. “The person I repeated the gossip to was Terry, who doesn’t really know Chris very well. Terry doesn’t care and wont repeat it. It was no big deal and Chris shouldn’t be upset about it.” By reducing the significance of my behavior, I reduce the dissonance that I experience and so make it less necessary to change my attitude toward Chris. Our discussion so far has ignored an important question: Why would someone engage in behavior that goes against an attitude in the first place? One answer is that cognitive dissonance is a natural part of everyday life. For example, simply choosing between two or more desirable alternatives leads inevitably to dissonance. Suppose you are in the market for a computer but can’t decide between a Dell and a Macintosh. If you choose one, all of its bad features and all the good aspects of the other contribute to dissonance. After you have bought one of the computers, you can reduce the dissonance by changing your attitude: you might decide that the keyboard on the other computer wasn’t “quit right” and that some of the “bad” features of the computer you bought are actually desirable. You may also engage in behavior at odds with an attitude because you are enticed to do so. Perhaps someone offers you a small bribe or reward: “I will pay you 25 cents just to try my product.” Curiously, the larger the reward, the smaller the change in attitude that is likely to result. When rewards are large, dissonance is at a minimum, and attitude change is small, if it happens at all. Apparently, when people are convinced that there is a good reason to do something that goes against their beliefs (“I’ll try almost anything to exchange for a large cash incentive”), they experience little dissonance and their attitudes are not likely to shift, even though their behavior may change fro a time. However, if the reward is small, just barely enough to induce behavior that conflicts with one’s attitude, dissonance will be great, maximizing the chances for attitude change: “I only got 25 cents to try this product, so it couldn’t have been the money that attracted me. I must really like this product after all.” The trick is to induce the behavior that goes against the attitude while leaving people feeling personally responsible for the dissonant act. That way they are more likely to change their attitudes than if they feel they were forced or blatantly induced to act in a way that contradicts their beliefs. In the final analysis, the most effective means of changing attitudes—especially important attitudes, behaviors, or lifestyle choices—may be self-persuasion (Aronson, 1999). In contrast with traditional, direct techniques of persuasion, people are put in situations where they are motivated to persuade themselves to change their attitudes or behavior. For example, many educators hoped that school integration—by itself—would reduce racial prejudices. But often the reverse proved true: although they attended the same schools and classes, black and white children tended to “self-segregate.” When children were assigned to small, culturally diverse study groups, in which they were forced to cooperate, attitudes changed—albeit slowly. Insults and put downs, often ethically based, decreased. Having learned to both teach and listen to “others,” students emerged from the experience with fewer group stereotypes and greater appreciation of individual differences. And this, in turn, made them less likely to stereotype others. In a nutshell, working with diverse individuals who did not fit preconceived notions made it difficult to maintain prejudice because of cognitive dissonance.