Understudied Areas of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

1

• Understudied Areas of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Daniel R. Stalder
• Ph.D. Personality and Social Psychology
• University of Iowa

2

• The test of a first-rate intelligence is the
  ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at
  the same time, and still retain the ability to
  function.                               
  - F. Scott Fitzgerald

3
Definition and Examples

• Cognitive dissonance - tension or psychological
  discomfort that arises from an inconsistency in
  cognitions (e.g., beliefs, self-concepts) and/or
  behaviors
• Ex., Claim to believe in something, but dont
  practice it (say one thing, do another)
• Q Do all people feel or deal with dissonance in
  the same way?

4
Understudied Areas

• 1. Individual differences (Wicklund Brehm,
  1976)
• - Attributional complexity (Stalder Baron,
  1998a)
• - Attitude importance (Stalder Devine, 2002)
• - Reactance (Stalder Devine, 2001)
• 2. Alternate modes of reduction (Harmon-Jones,
  2000)
• - Attitude change
• - External justification (Stalder Baron,
  1998a)
• - Perceived choice (Stalder Devine, 2001,
  2002)
• - Self-affirmation (Stalder Devine, 2001)
• - Trivialization (Stalder Baron, 1998a)
• - Social comparison?

5
Understudied Areas (cont.)

• 3. Connections to social comparison theory
• - Social comparisons can reduce dissonance
  (Stalder Baron, 1998b, 2001 Stalder Devine,
  2002)
• but why? (external justification,
  trivialization,)
• - Are high social comparers more likely to
  use/create comparison information? (Stalder
  Baron, 1998b Stalder Andrews, 2004)

6
Stalder Baron (1998a)

• Undergrads (Ns 88, 58) completed the
  Attributional Complexity Scale (Fletcher et al.,
  1986)
• Wrote essays favoring tuition increase (w/o
  deception)
• IVs Low vs. High Choice
• Attributional Complexity (AC) 2 x 2 design
• DVs Attitudes toward tuition increases (4 items)
• (Exp.2) External Justification (open-ended)
• Trivialization
• Discomfort with Ambiguity
• Hyp High AC people will show less attitude change

7
Main Results Experiment 1

• - Choice manipulation was effective (10-pt scale)
• Low choice M 1.1, High choice M 5.3, p lt
  .001
• - Attitude items intercorrelated single factor
• - Typical attitude change (main effect of
  choice)
• Low choice M 4.9, High choice M 5.5 (10-pt
  scale) F(1, 84)
  4.88, p lt .05
• - Only low AC participants showed attitude
  change from low to high choice

8
Main Results Experiment 2

• - Replicated Experiment 1
• Choice x AC interaction F(1, 54) 5.28, p lt
  .03
• - High AC participants showed more external
  justification
• - No support for trivialization or discomfort
  with ambiguity

9
Attitude as a Function of Choice and AC
10
External Reasons as a Function of Choice and AC
11
Secondary Result (Exp. 1)

• DV Perceived consensus for attitude
• How many people do you know who (0 to 3 or
  more)
• Q Another mode of dissonance reduction?
• Choice x AC interaction F(1, 82) 3.07, p lt
  .09
• Low AC participants created more consensus from
  low (M 1.3) to high choice (M 1.9), p lt .08
• Q Could social comparison information reduce
  dissonance?

12
Quotes in the News

• Teen asked why he took down stop signs.
• A Because it was something that everybody
  does.
• Police chief asked about side business.
• A Hundreds of thousands of cops take 20 cash
  for side jobs all the time. This is a lot better
  than that
• Britney Spears asked about recent party behavior.
• A just like anybody else my age

13
Stalder Baron (2001)

• Undergrads (N 184) wrote essays favoring
  tuition increase (w/o deception)
• IVs Low vs. High Choice
• No, one, or multiple comparison others
  (actual previous essay provided) 2 x 3
• DVs Attitudes toward tuition increases (4 items)
• External Justification (closed-ended 3
  items)

14
Main Results

• Manipulations of choice and consensus effective
• External justification dropped from low to high
  choice
• External justification did not rise with
  comparison others
• No attitude change (from low to high choice)
• - real recent tuition increase on campus
• - salient cues to tuition attitudes during
  sign-up
• - some participants expected to be able to
  complain
• Attitude and external justification correlated
  negatively in control/high choice condition

15
Stalder Devine (2002)

• Modified Stalder Barons (2001) procedure
• - again used tuition essay paradigm, but
• - used deception
• - preselected participants with strongly
  negative attitudes
• - DVs prior to actual essay writing
• - simplified comparison other information
  (provided no or high consensus information)
• 2 x 2 (Choice x Consensus Information)

16
Main Results Experiment 1

• - Manipulation checks
• Low choice M 2.8, High choice M 9.7, p lt
  .001 (15-pt scale)
• No info M 39, High consensus M 54, p
  .06
• - Typical attitude change (main effect of
  choice)
• Low choice M 4.4, High choice M 6.2 (15-pt
  scale) F(1, 58)
  6.64, p lt .02
• - Choice x Consensus Information interaction
• F(1, 58) 4.29, p lt .05

17
Attitude as a Function of Choice and Consensus
Information
18
Why Does Social Comparison Work?

• Other Experiment 1 DVs
• - External justification (2 items)
• - Social validation (2 items comfort,
  mistake)
• (change perception of behavior shouldnt have
  done it)
• No evidence for these mechanisms

19
Discussion Experiment 1

• Social comparison reduced dissonance
• No support for external justification (2nd time)
• No support for social validation

20
Experiment 2

• DVs Modified Social Validation (3 items)
• e.g., perceived acceptance by fellow students
• Trivialization (3 items)
• e.g., perceived responsibility, seriousness
• Results Largely replicated attitudinal results,
  but
• no evidence for either mechanism

21
Why Does Social Comparison Work?

• Could still be social validation or
  trivialization but
  difficult to detect
• - new measures
• - new paradigm ask participants in 3rd-person
• Could be self-affirmation (Steele Liu, 1983)
• Social comparison could represent a distinct mode
  of reduction (Bolger, Zuckerman, Kessler, 2000
  Schachter, 1959)
• - manipulate introspection after receiving
  consensus information

22
Application

• Q Why is the divorce rate so high?
• Q Shouldnt divorce be dissonance arousing?
• (e.g., given conseqs and the wedding vows)
• Q Could the high divorce rate (social
  comparison information) reduce the dissonance?
• Q Is there a difference in how much some of us
  care about what other couples do?

23
Stalder Andrews (2004)

• Undergrads and community members (Ns 95, 105)
  completed a survey on interpersonal relations
• IVs Vow Reminder
• Divorce Rate information (gt 50)
• Social Comparison Orientation (SCO)
  (Gibbons Buunk, 1999) 2 x 2 x
  2
• DVs Divorce acceptability (13-20 items/reasons)
  
• e.g., spouse gains weight, emotional abuse
• Divorce comfort (1-2 items)

24
Main Results

• Acceptability items formed reliable scale (a gt
  .90) (15-pt scale)
• Vow reminder lowered acceptability/comfort
  (main effect)
• Divorce rate information increased
  accept./comfort
• only in the absence of vow reminder
  (Vow Reminder x Divorce Rate interaction)
• High social comparers showed higher
  accept./comfort (main effect only)
• Some gender differences

25
Future Dissonance Directions

• Why does social comparison reduce dissonance?
• - self-affirmation
• - distinct mode
• Other connections between dissonance and social
  comparison theory
• (e.g., dissonance from disagreement)
• Processes of social communication and social
  influence are inextricably interwoven with
  processes of creation and reduction of
  dissonance.
• - Festinger (1957)

26
Future Dissonance Directions (cont.)

• Applications of connections
• - Facilitate the effects of good dissonance
• - between self-concept and low school
  performance
• (e.g., note academic disidentification)
• - between personal morals and peer group
  behavior
• - Better understand some social psychological
  phenomena
• conformity, deindividuation, false consensus
  effect, group polarization, projection,
  social categorization,
• - Possibly resolve dissonance theoretical issues

27
Future Dissonance Directions (cont.)

• Individual differences in dissonance processes
• (can maximize reach of application efforts)
• - Social Comparison Orientation
• - Need for Closure subfactors
• - Attitude importance

28
Future Individual Difference Research

• Social Comparison Orientation
• (Gibbons Buunk, 1999 Stalder, 2003 Stalder
  Andrews, 2004)
• Need for Closure subfactors
• (Neuberg et al., 1997 Stalder, 1998 Stalder
  Kozel, 2002)

29
Questions?