Consistency is what i want in life.
After my previous post i realised how long it has been since anyone has posted on this blog. I do realise that only 2 ppl ever post here. But oh well, its been busy time for me and i am at the moment studying for a test on friday. And since i am studying this really interesting theory on social psychology and Louise is rather interested in knowing about it, i might as well practice my essay writing skills here. This might be the first and last time a post on In-sense-abel is actually of practical use and is relevant to the real world.
I am not sure if many of the people reading (and i doubt that there are that many anyway) have heard of the theory of cognitive dissonance. I read about in year 1 in UWA but in second year its a bit more detailed and its implications are being studied more (or shld i say much more examinable in Queens). In essence, the theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger (1957) states that a powerful motive to maintain consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behaviour.
According to Festinger, everyone holds certain cognitions about ourselves and the world around us. These can be everything we know about our own beliefs, attitudes and behaviour for example. Although most times our cognitions coexist peacefully, at certain times they clash. The text book example is being on a diet and diving into chocolate mousse. Therefore, to cut the long story short, under certain specific conditions, discrepancies such as these can evoke an unpleasent state of tension known as cognitive dissonance.
The classic experiment is one conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in 1959. They made participants in their experiment turn square pegs in holes to the left , then turn them back to the right, then left and so on for half an hour. They then made them take spools of thread off a board , replace them and put them back again for another half an hour. This undoubtedly is the most boring hour in most of the participants' lives. HAHA. (thats if they didnt run off halfway or suffered a boredom breakdown mind you).
The second part of the study involves telling these participants that they are actually involved in an experiment measuring motivation on performance. This is in fact a blatant lie. They are then asked to tell the next person going to take the test that the test was a fun and exciting, throughly enjoyable experiment. In actual fact, the next participant is a conferderate of the whole scam. The crucial manipulation is the participants are given either $20, or $1 to lie.
By means of an elaborate but very cleverly staged scam, participants have been tricked to an attitude discrepant behaviour. The experiment was terribly dull, yet they raved about it and this conflict arose cognitive dissonance. After talking to the next participant (the conferderate), and the experiment presumably over, the real participants were surveyed to ask their feelings on the task. Take a moment to think what the findings of the experiment were? They might be a bit counterintuitive. Try answering this question " True or False -- The more money you pay a person to tell a lie, the more they will come to believe it." ??
Those in a control group who were not required to mislead someone , admitted bluntly the task was boring (avg rating 6-7). The $20 group also admitted boredom (avg 9-10), but the $1 group rated the task as somewhat enjoyable (avg 22-23).
Why this occurred according to Festinger was that people in the $1 group were thinking "surely my integrity is worth more than a buck?" There had insufficient justification (a condition which ppl freely perform an attitude discrepant behaviour without receiving a large reward), and thus needed a way to cope. Bottom line: Behaving in an attidtude discrepant manner without justification, the one dollar participants changed their attitudes in order to reduce dissonance. Stemming from this then is the idea that when ppl behave in ways that contradict their attitudes, they sometimes go on to change their attitudes, even without a persuasive communication. What are some of the implications of this then? That will be tomorrow's topic but you ppl can think abt it. And feel how strange the human species can be sometimes. Actually like Festinger and Carlsmith, i am also lying, its mainly that i am tired of typing. Laters.
I am not sure if many of the people reading (and i doubt that there are that many anyway) have heard of the theory of cognitive dissonance. I read about in year 1 in UWA but in second year its a bit more detailed and its implications are being studied more (or shld i say much more examinable in Queens). In essence, the theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger (1957) states that a powerful motive to maintain consistency can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behaviour.
According to Festinger, everyone holds certain cognitions about ourselves and the world around us. These can be everything we know about our own beliefs, attitudes and behaviour for example. Although most times our cognitions coexist peacefully, at certain times they clash. The text book example is being on a diet and diving into chocolate mousse. Therefore, to cut the long story short, under certain specific conditions, discrepancies such as these can evoke an unpleasent state of tension known as cognitive dissonance.
The classic experiment is one conducted by Festinger and Carlsmith in 1959. They made participants in their experiment turn square pegs in holes to the left , then turn them back to the right, then left and so on for half an hour. They then made them take spools of thread off a board , replace them and put them back again for another half an hour. This undoubtedly is the most boring hour in most of the participants' lives. HAHA. (thats if they didnt run off halfway or suffered a boredom breakdown mind you).
The second part of the study involves telling these participants that they are actually involved in an experiment measuring motivation on performance. This is in fact a blatant lie. They are then asked to tell the next person going to take the test that the test was a fun and exciting, throughly enjoyable experiment. In actual fact, the next participant is a conferderate of the whole scam. The crucial manipulation is the participants are given either $20, or $1 to lie.
By means of an elaborate but very cleverly staged scam, participants have been tricked to an attitude discrepant behaviour. The experiment was terribly dull, yet they raved about it and this conflict arose cognitive dissonance. After talking to the next participant (the conferderate), and the experiment presumably over, the real participants were surveyed to ask their feelings on the task. Take a moment to think what the findings of the experiment were? They might be a bit counterintuitive. Try answering this question " True or False -- The more money you pay a person to tell a lie, the more they will come to believe it." ??
Those in a control group who were not required to mislead someone , admitted bluntly the task was boring (avg rating 6-7). The $20 group also admitted boredom (avg 9-10), but the $1 group rated the task as somewhat enjoyable (avg 22-23).
Why this occurred according to Festinger was that people in the $1 group were thinking "surely my integrity is worth more than a buck?" There had insufficient justification (a condition which ppl freely perform an attitude discrepant behaviour without receiving a large reward), and thus needed a way to cope. Bottom line: Behaving in an attidtude discrepant manner without justification, the one dollar participants changed their attitudes in order to reduce dissonance. Stemming from this then is the idea that when ppl behave in ways that contradict their attitudes, they sometimes go on to change their attitudes, even without a persuasive communication. What are some of the implications of this then? That will be tomorrow's topic but you ppl can think abt it. And feel how strange the human species can be sometimes. Actually like Festinger and Carlsmith, i am also lying, its mainly that i am tired of typing. Laters.
posted by efarmer at 10:00:00 PM
9 Comments:
Cognitive dissonance. I remember this!
I was going to comment on the previous post, but seeing as there were comments already, I decided to plonk out my words here instead.
I don't make much sense? I know.
I am consistent too. Consistenly procrastinating
Hey you spelled consistenly wrongly. Does this mean i have to be consisten too? Consistenly spelling consistenly wrongly?
i am reading mah...hmm...i'm glad i'm not STUDYING psych. it's nice to know, but i will so go crazy. i guess that's why you half are? :P but yeah, the results are kinda strange tho...
hm... somehow, my passing remark on not having that many readers anyways seemed to get more commenters. I feel a psych experiment coming along here!! I shall try to manipulate my readers for my next post in an original and exciting way. hahaha.
Anyways, his go out to everyone and i should read other ppls blogs more often myself i guess. So thanks for the encouragement.
don't make fun of dyslexic people... or u'll get ur just desserts! ;p
ya, Mishi stands up for dyslexics!
He can give Abel his just desserts or we can give him his just deserts.
argh... the "He" was meant to be a "We". It's the dyslexia, I tell you...
i remember cognitive dissonance from first year psych too!
i recall being utterly confused by the experimental results too.
but i reckon it's easier to change your behaviour rather than your attitude?
Yo brother Yee..(I know that sounds really bad, but you must admit its funny) how are you man? I think its likely that people will change both attitude and behaviour and there are many diff conditions for either, and the experimental results get even more confusing. hahaha.
Post a Comment
<< Home