In the last video, we discussed the link between attitudes and behavior, but we didn't discuss the issue of causation. Specifically, when attitudes and behavior are related to each other, is it more often the case that attitudes shape behavior, or that behavior shapes attitudes? Until Leon Festinger developed the theory of cognitive dissonance, most people assumed that attitudes shaped behavior much more than the other way around. But with the arrival of dissonance theory, psychologists began to question that assumption. Now, instead of me giving you a dry definition of exactly what the theory is, let me first illustrate how it works with a story that captures its essence. This story comes from a book on Jewish folklore, and it's a very well known story in social psychology. Once upon a time, there was a Jewish tailor who set up his business on the main street of a town that had an anti-Semitic gang—a bunch of kids who would visit the shop each day shouting "Jew! Jew!" in an effort to basically bother him and drive him out of town. Well, the tailor was bothered, but after several sleepless nights, he finally devised a plan. The next time that the kids came to threaten him, the tailor announced that anyone who called him a Jew would get a dime. He then handed out dimes to each member of the gang. Pleased with their new incentive, the kids come back the next day, they're shouting "Jew! Jew!" and the tailor, smiling, gave each one a nickel, explaining that he could only afford five cents that day. Well, the gang left satisfied because after all, a nickel's a nickel. Then in the following day, the tailor gave out only pennies to each gang member, again, explaining that he couldn't afford more than that. Well, a penny wasn't much of an incentive, and the kids began to protest. When the tailor replied that they could take it or leave it, they decided to leave it, refusing to call him a Jew for only one penny. Problem solved! Now why would members of the gang harass the tailor for free, but not for a penny? According to Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, people are generally motivated to reduce or avoid psychological inconsistencies, so when the tailor announced that he was happy to be called a Jew, and when he changed the gang's motivation from anti-Semitism to monetary reward, he made it inconsistent, or "dissonance-arousing" for the gang to please him without financial compensation. Without a sufficiently large payment, the kids could no longer justify behaving at variance with their attitudes, which were, of course, to upset the tailor, not to make him happy. Well, in 1959 the same principle was demonstrated in what may well be the best known cognitive dissonance experiment ever conducted—a senior thesis, as it turns out, carried out by Leon Festinger's student, Merrill Carlsmith. A personal aside: that talented undergraduate eventually became the professor who taught me statistics when I was a graduate student over 20 years later. He was an absolutely brilliant psychologist, and this photo comes to us courtesy his son, Chris, who is now himself a professor. Anyway, in the study, 60 undergraduate students at Stanford were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions. In the $20 condition, participants were required to perform boring laboratory tasks for an hour, after which they were paid $20 to tell a waiting student that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. The experimenter explained that a paid assistant normally performed that duty as part of the experiment, but that the assistant couldn't do it that day. In the $1 condition, students were paid $1 to do the very same thing. And there was also a control condition in which students simply engaged in the boring tasks. What were the tasks? Well, first, students spent half an hour using one hand to put 12 spools onto a tray, unload the tray, load the tray again, unload the tray, refill the tray one more time, and so on, with the experimenter simply sitting there with a stopwatch carefully taking notes. Then, just when the students were about to lose their minds, they spent another 30 minutes using one hand to turn 48 pegs on a peg board one-quarter turn at a time—in other words, Boring with a capital B! Once the poor student had finished his tasks, here's what the experimenter said: >> Okay, that's fine. Let me tell you now what we're actually studying here. It's the effect of preparatory mental set on performance. The rest of the subjects are prepared by being told that the experiment will be very interesting and enjoyable; in fact, it's lots of fun. Now, I have a somewhat unusual request to make of you. The next subject is waiting right outside, but the fellow who ordinarily gives the spiel isn't here. I wonder if you could possibly take his place. As a matter of fact, we figure we'll be needing someone in the future, so I'd like to offer you a $20 retainer and have you remain on call for us. Would that be alright? >> $20? That'd be fine. >> After the student agreed to be hired—and by the way, all of the students did—the experimenter led the student to a room where another person appeared to be waiting for the experiment to begin, and that person—who was in fact a member of the research team (a confederate)—said that a friend who had earlier participated in the experiment described it as really miserable, as boring and tedious, and so on. Let's listen in. >> He said it was pretty miserable and that I should do everything I could to get out of it. >> Well, I think maybe your friend was wrong. Perhaps there's a different experiment, because this was a lot of fun. It appeared to me as if it were, as if it were a puzzle. We had to turn these knobs, and I tried to figure out what we were doing it for, but I really couldn't figure it out. Perhaps you'll have better luck. >> What were the results? Participants in the $20 condition and in the control condition later evaluated the experimental task as slightly negative, but participants in the $1 condition actually thought the tasks were fairly positive. Festinger and Carlsmith argued that students who were paid only a dollar to lie to another person had experienced cognitive dissonance. According to Festinger, people experience cognitive dissonance when they simultaneously hold two thoughts that are psychologically incompatible—that are inconsistent in some way. In this particular instance, the dissonant cognitions were the following: First, the tasks were extremely boring. And second, for only a dollar, I (an honest person), just told someone the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. When taken together these statements imply that people in the $1 condition had lied for no good reason. People in the $20 condition, on the other hand, had agreed to be hired for what they apparently considered to be a very good reason: $20 (which was, in those days, a small fortune— something like $150 today). Festinger proposed that people try whenever possible to reduce cognitive dissonance. He regarded dissonance as a negative drive state, as an unpleasant feeling or condition, and he hypothesized that people in that $1 condition would be motivated to reduce their feelings of dissonance. Now, of course, there wasn't much the students could do about that second thought. The fact is, they did tell another person that the task was enjoyable, and they did it for only a dollar. And they probably weren't going to change their view of themselves as honest decent people. On the other hand, the dullness of the task afforded students some wiggle room. Dullness, you might say, is in the eye of the beholder. So, according to Festinger and Carlsmith, people in the $1 condition later came to believe that the task was kind of fun in order to reduce the dissonance caused by lying to another person for only a dollar. In contrast, people in the $20 condition saw the experimental tasks for exactly what they were: crushingly dull. People in that experimental condition had no need to reduce dissonance, because they already had a good explanation for their behavior: they were paid $20. Here's some rare footage of Leon Festinger himself explaining cognitive dissonance theory. >> Other theories might predict that the man who is paid most would have the highest motivation for enthusing over the dull task and would be most sold on it himself. Cognitive dissonance theory leads to an exactly opposite prediction. The man who is paid $20 knows that the task is dull, but he also knows that he had sufficient justification for saying that it wasn't. >> Did you enjoy working on the manual test? >> Well, it really wasn't too enjoyable. In fact, it was rather boring. >> How about the man who is paid $1? He knows the task is dull, but he has two discrepant thoughts. He also knows that he did not have sufficient justification for saying that it wasn't. For him, there is dissonance. Time after time, we have seen what follows. He reduces the dissonance by changing his opinion about the dullness of the task. >> The bottom line is that cognitive dissonance theory has two main prongs. First, the act of holding two incompatible thoughts creates a sense of internal discomfort, or "dissonance." And second, people try to reduce or avoid these feelings of tension whenever possible. But it turns out that the story doesn't end here, because there's a whole other way to account for what Festinger and Carlsmith found. In the mid-1960's, social psychologist Daryl Bem proposed that cognitive dissonance findings could be explained by what he called "self-perception theory." According to self-perception theory, dissonance findings have nothing to do with a negative drive state called dissonance. They have only to do with how people infer their beliefs from their own behavior. Like dissonance theory, Bem's self-perception theory has two main prongs: First, individuals come to know their own attitudes and emotions and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own behavior and the circumstances in which their behavior occurs. And second, to the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer. It just so happens that the person you're observing is yourself. The way Bem would explained Festinger and Carlsmith's results is to argue that students who saw themselves tell another person that the task was enjoyable for only a dollar inferred that they must have enjoyed the task, just as an outside observer would infer. On the other hand, students who saw themselves tell another person that the task was enjoyable for $20 explained their behavior to themselves as a result of being paid a large sum of money—again, as an outside observer would. The difference between self-perception theory and cognitive dissonance theory is that self-perception theory explains classic dissonance findings in terms of how people infer the causes of their behavior. It is essentially attributional in nature, whereas cognitive dissonance theory explains findings in terms of a natural tendency to reduce inner conflict, tension, dissonance. According to Bem, participants in the Festinger and Carlsmith study could have been cool as cucumbers and still given the same pattern of results. A feeling of dissonance, according to Bem, isn't necessary. Which of these two theories is more accurate or more useful when it comes to explaining dissonance "phenomena"? Well, for many years, researchers on each side of the issue attempted to design a definitive experiment in support of their theory, in effect dealing a friendly death blow to the other side. But, in fact, each round of experimentation served only to provoke more experiments by the other side, and after several years of this, Bem himself withdrew from the debate. In the final analysis, I think it makes sense to say that both theories operate in a wide variety of situations. Clearly, there are many situations in which we do feel tension, and there are also situations in which we closely watch our behavior and draw inferences from it. Following psychology tradition, however, I'm going to use dissonance terminology when discussing research findings that could be explained equally well by self-perception theory. But let's pause now, just briefly, for a quick comprehension check, and then I'll make a few closing remarks. So, we've now covered the basics of cognitive dissonance theory and self-perception theory, which sets you up for the most interesting part: classic research findings that are filled with surprises, useful applications, and thought provoking consequences. That will be our topic for next time.
