Chapter 9: Cognitive Consistency & Social Motivation PSY 338: Motivation.

Chapter 9: Cognitive Consistency & Social Motivation

PSY 338: Motivation

Cognitive Consistency Theory

Group of theories sharing the same assumption that humans have a consistency in their cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors•The idea that change in behavior can motivate a change in attitude, especially when the behavior and attitude are inconsistent with each other •Often an aversive state of tension activating behaviors that are designed to reduce or eliminate the tension

▫Homeostatic theories


Cognitions form “associative networks”•Associative networks include beliefs, attitudes, and other cognitions•The associations are often unconscious, implicit•Changes in one belief or attitude may produce a “ripple effect” elsewhere in one’s cognitive system

Three basic assumptions of consistency theories• People expect, prefer consistency

Individuals strive to maintain psychological harmony among their beliefs, attitudes, behaviors

• Inconsistency causes psychological discomfort, tension “Dissonance” is uncomfortable,

may even be accompanied by physiological symptoms

• Individuals are motivated to restore cognitive consistency “Drive-reduction” model a form of face-saving, identity

management

Angelina Jolie replaced her “Billy Bob” tattoo


Sherman & Gorkin (1980) Procedure•Females who scored high on a feminism scale

were set up to fail on a sex-role problem▫A control group with similar scores on the feminism scale were not set up in this manner•Then both groups were asked to read a

transcript about a sex discrimination case▫Their task was to decide who was wrong in the case and make an award

Cognitive Consistency TheorySherman & Gorkin (1980)

Results• The feminists who experienced dissonance were more

likely to find that sex discrimination had occurred and gave much larger awards compared to the control group

Interpretation• The failure of the treatment group to solve the problem

induced a state of psychological inconsistency in the feminists

• Their decision helped to restore their self-concept as feminists

• Threats to one’s self image lead to attempts to bolster, reinforce, or reestablish the threatened attitudes

Balance Theory

Heider (1946)▫Theory posits that a tendency exists for relationships between people, objects, or both to be balanced

Relationships can be positive (balanced) Relationships can be negative (unbalanced)

▫Illustrated basic principles of theory using triadic situations

Situation involving two people and a third object/event/idea

▫The positive or negative relationship is inside the head of the person

They are motivated to reach balance

Problems With Balance Theory1. No clear indication of how balance will be

restored ▫ Which element will change?

2. Does not take into account the importance factor

▫ Some relationships are more important than others

3. Does not give us a way to gauge the degree of the imbalance and is unclear as to how much imbalance is required before behavior is triggered

▫ “Type” idea is employed which critics oppose

Cognitive DissonanceThe idea that we try to maintain consistency of or beliefs, attitudes, and opinions with our overt behavior•As long as consistency is maintained, no motivation is triggered•The amount of dissonance created depends upon:

▫How volitional the decision is▫The importance or consequences of the

decision▫The time, effort, or sacrifice involved in

making the decision

Creating psychological inconsistency…

Above picture illustrates a guilt appeal on the bus bench is designed to induce cognitive dissonance in patrons of this “Gentlemen’s Club”

Cognitive Dissonance Theory explains what happens when an individual’s beliefs, attitudes, and/or behaviors are incompatible

Research on Dissonance

Justification of Effort•We appreciate things more when we work for them•The greater the effort or sacrifice, the greater the dissonanceInduced compliance•External inducements, rewards reduce dissonance•When a person is compelled to do something, little dissonance is aroused because the person can rationalize the action by saying “I had no choice.”

Several research areas illustrate cognitive dissonance

Induced ComplianceFestinger & Carlsmith (1959)Procedure•Participants performed an excruciatingly boring task – turning pegs in holes

•Group 1: Offered $1 to lie to a waiting participant•Group 2: Offered $20 to lie to a waiting participant•Group 3: Control group

•Both experimental groups were told to say the study is fun & exciting

Click on picture for video

Induced Compliance

Results•When later asked their attitudes toward the boring task:•Those receiving $1 payment had come to see it as more enjoyable•Those receiving $20 hadn't changed their attitudes at all

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

Induced Compliance

Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)Interpretation•$20 provided adequate justification for misleading another student; no dissonance •$1 was insufficient justification, thus arousing dissonance •Changing beliefs about the task reduced the cognitive discomfort for these participants

Research on Dissonance

Selective Exposure to Information•Dissonance is aroused when a person encounters information contrary to his or her beliefs.•People engage in selective exposure to avoid dissonant informationPostdecisonal Dissonance•Revaluing your decision after it is made•Leads to more positive feelings, less dissonance

Postdecisonal DissonanceBrehm (1956)•Women rated several products•Later they are told that they could keep one of two of the products they had previously given the same rating to•They then were interviewed after they made their choice•Rating for the chosen item increased; rating for the other item decreased

But what if you can still change your mind?Knox & Inkster (1968)•Bettors were interviewed just before of just after placing their bet on a horse racing event•Ask for their level of confidence•After buying ticket, they were again asked about their confidence

• Post-bet group > Pre-bet group

Brownstein, Read & Simon (2004)•Interviewed horse racing bettors at three times before they placed bet; then again after bet was placed•They became more convinced that they would win with every successive interview

• “Pre-bet bolstering”•They did not devalue their unchosen alternatives

When Prophecy FailsFestinger, Riecken, & Schachter (1956)•Researchers join cult that was predicting end of the world•Their purpose was to observe the cultists’ response when the world did not, in fact, end on schedule•Cognitive dissonance was accurately predicted by the researchers•Efforts were made to reduce it

Click on picture for full story

Criticisms of Dissonance

1. Vague, primitive, lacks precision making prediction of whether any two cognitions will conflict in a given individual virtually impossible

2. Dissonance is not remedied in a specific way –no definitive statement about which particular way will be chosen in a given situation or by a given individual

3. Alternative explanations have not been ruled out

Self-Perception Theory

Bem (1962)•This theory posits that we observe our own behavior much as an outsider might do, then make judgments based on these observations•Self-monitoring process

Self-Perception TheoryBem (1967)•Argued against the interpretation of the Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) experiment•Felt that an outside observer would come to that conclusion; since the observer is not experiencing dissonance and comes to the same conclusion, how can you say the response was due to dissonance?•Felt we might watch ourselves perform the behavior and again come to the same conclusion as the outside observer

• Conducted interpersonal replication – same results

Dissonance or Self-Perception?

• Despite criticisms and alternative explanations, cognitive dissonance theory continues to have support

• Motivational state appears to be factor in leading to this behavior

• Brain activity while participants are undergoing dissonance are not seen in control participants

Social Motivation

Social Facilitation•If performance can be individually evaluated, the presence of others will be arousing and can enhance performance

Social Facilitation & Inhibition: Coaction & Audience EffectsTriplett (1898)•Triplett, who was a bicycling enthusiast, noticed that cyclists performed better in races than they did when they were paced by motor-driven cycles or when they were timed riding the course alone

▫Same result when he asked children to wind fishing reels as quickly as possible

▫He thought that the mere presence of others would improve our performance

Normann Triplett(1861-1931)

Social Facilitation & Inhibition: Coaction & Audience Effects

Triplett (1898)Procedures•Had children and teenagers attempt to turn a fishing rod reel at the highest rate of speed until a small flag sewed to the silk band had made four circuits of the four-meter courseResults•All participants performed faster when in competition compared to when aloneInterpretation•Coaction effect led to improved performances


Zajonc went back and analyzed the research•He noticed that nearly all of the many studies that documented social facilitation studied well-learned responses

▫Bicycling▫Lifting weights▫Eating rapidly

Robert Zajonc(1923-2008)


Zajonc (1969)•The type of task was an important determinant to success as well•Was it a well-learned task or was it relatively new?•Arousal of coaction effect seems to help with just the easy tasks


Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)Procedure•Cockroach placed in a tube with a bright light at one end of the tube•To escape the light, the cockroach had to run down the tube and into a darkened box at the other end of the tube•Both a simple and complex maze was utilized

See next slide


Zajonc, Heingartner, & Herman (1969)

Social Facilitation & Inhibition: Coaction & Audience EffectsResults•Audience effect seen only in simple maze as it appears to be a factor in the increased cockroaches’ performance •Not seen on the more complex turning task

▫Simple Maze: Alone: 41 seconds Audience: 33 seconds

▫Complex Maze: Alone: 110 seconds Audience: 130 seconds

Interpretation•Type of task is interacting with arousal (Yerkes-Dodson Law applies)

Social Facilitation & Inhibition: Coaction & Audience EffectsMichaels et al. (1982)Procedure•Secretly rated pool players in a hall as above average or below average ability•Then a group of confederates came and stood by their table as they playedResults •The above average players' shot accuracy improved from 71 to 80% accurate, while the below average players slipped from 36 to 25% accurate Interpretation•Type of task is interacting with arousal (Yerkes-Dodson Law applies)

Social Facilitation & Inhibition: Coaction & Audience EffectsPark & Catrambone (2007)Procedure•Participants did a variety of tasks rotating from one of three conditions

▫Watched by human▫Watched by virtual human▫Alone

Actual Virtual Human used in the study


Park & Catrambone (2007)Results•No differences found in performances when being viewed by real or virtual audiencesInterpretation•Supported Zajonc’s findings; extended by using the virtual human


Baumeister & Steinhilber (1984)•Critical games might be a home disadvantage•Researchers suggest it may cause the home team to “choke”


Criticisms of Arousal Theories•The term arousal is vague; no clear-cut definitions•Distinction of underlying processes between different audience effects (positive, negative) are not clear•Suggestions that all participants in social facilitation experiments feel as if they are being monitored

Several powerful influences that the presence of others can have on our individuality and ethical behaviorConformity•Chang in one’s beliefs or behaviors as a result of real or imagined pressure from a group or individual•Changing one’s behavior to match the responses or actions of others

Social Influence

The Chameleon Effect

Chartrand & Bargh (1997)•Participant and confederate worked on a task together•Participants mimicked the behavior of the confederate

▫Rub face▫Shake foot

•Milgram et al. (1969) ▫Research confederates congregated and

craned their necks to gawk at a window on the 6th floor of an apartment building

▫80% of all passers-by stopped and gazed upward

Conformity

Is behavior contagious?

Sherif (1947)Procedure•Researcher asks participant to judge the apparent movement of a stationary light on a wall •Later: One participant and one confederate•Eventually: One participant and several confederatesResults•Over time participants’ estimates conformed to confederates’ estimatesInterpretation•In ambiguous situations, people tend to rely on information provided by others

Conformity

Muzafer Sherif(1906-1988)

ConformityAsch’s classic research studies (195os-1960s)

•Series of experiments most done with 1 participant and several confederates

•Real participant would give their judgment after several confederates had already given theirs

Solomon Asch(1907-1996)

Basic Set-up

Which of the lines on the left most closely matches line A on the right?

Conformity

A1 2 3

What would you say if you were in a group of 6 others, and all agreed the answer was 2?

Asch Studies

This student keep wiping his glasses

Asch Studies

When alone, 95% of participants got all the answers correct…

Conformity

A1 2 3

When confronted by When confronted by the unanimous the unanimous incorrect majority, incorrect majority, participants participants conformed about 33% conformed about 33% of the time…in fact of the time…in fact 81% went against 81% went against their own eyes at least their own eyes at least once if the group gave once if the group gave a wrong answera wrong answer

Asch Studies

ConformityInformational social influence • Some participants said it was because they thought

the others must have had better eyesight or be better informed in some way

•They were basically utilizing others as a source of information•Distortion of judgment

Normative social influence • Some participants said they didn’t want to look silly

or be rejected by the rest of the group• They wanted to “fit in” with the others• Distortion of action

Asch Studies

Factors That Affect Conformity Motivation Degree of Ambiguity▫Uncertainty in correct answer should bring out more conformityGroup size▫1 confederate: almost no conformity▫2 confederates: 12.8% conformity▫3 confederates: 33% conformity▫4 or more confederates: conformity remains stable at about 33%Unanimity▫Presence of an ally reduces conformity from 33% to about 5% ▫He found this was the case even in large groups

Asch Studies

Criticisms of Conformity Research Unrealistic laboratory paradigm▫People don’t sit around judging the lengths of lines

No incentive to produce the correct answer▫Task is not important to them

Historical phenomenon▫Generational changes to individualistic society

Asch Studies

Addressing the Criticisms: Conformity outside the labMann (1977)Procedure▫People in Jerusalem tend to mill about at bus stop; don’t wait in line▫Confederates begin lining up for bus as soon as previous bus departed▫Researcher varied the number of confederates from 2-8

Addressing the Criticisms: Conformity outside the lab

Mann (1977)Results ▫Conformity generally increased as the number of confederates increased

Interpretation▫Conformity effects are not limited to the lab setting

# of confederates

Addressing the Criticisms: No longer relevantNeto (1995)• This study aimed at investigating whether

conformity in the experimental setting suggested by Asch was particularly related to American culture and less likely to be replicable elsewhere - e.g. in Portugal - as has been suggested more recently

Procedure• Asch's classic conformity and independence

experiment was replicated, using women psychology students in a Portuguese university

• The original procedure was re-enacted as similarly as possible using a computer program

Addressing the Criticisms: No longer relevantNeto (1995)Results•Among participants in the experimental condition 59% conformed at least once, 28% yielded three to twelve times •Thus this shows that a degree of conformity to a unanimous peer-group opinion remains observable•Participants reported considerable distress under the group pressure (just as in the original experiment) Interpretation▫Still relevant; no generational change

Why do people conform?

Asch (1952)•In this early version of the lines experiment,

Asch had 16 participants with 1 confederate who gave obvious incorrect answer

•Participants laughed at and ridiculed the confederate

Compliance

Behavior change in direct response to a requestThe foot-in-the-door effect•A technique which increases compliance motivation to a large request by first getting compliance to a smaller, related requestThe door-in-the-face effect•A technique which increases compliance motivation by beginning with a large request then following up with a lesser request

The Foot-in-the-Door EffectFreedman & Fraser (1966)ProcedureGroup 1•Researcher knocks on door asking people if they would mind if he put up this large, unattractive DRIVE CAREFULLY sign on their front lawnGroup 2•Researcher knocks on doors asking people to sign petition to support legislation that promotes safe driving; two weeks later different researcher asks about the unattractive DRIVE CAREFULLY sign

The Foot-in-the-Door EffectFreedman & Fraser (1966)Results•Significantly more in Group 2 (initial small, then later large request) are motivated to comply

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percent That

Complied

Intrusive Only Initial, then Intrusive

Request Made

Interpretation•Bem’s self-perception theory seems to apply here•Agreeing to small request has apparently changed we perceive ourselves; later we are more likely to agree to the large request because we are motivated to engage in behavior that is consistent with our self-perception

The Foot-in-the-Door Effect

Cialdini et al. (1975)ProcedureGroup 1: Rejection-Moderation Condition▫Undergrads were asked if they would agree to work two hours per week for two years as a volunteer counselor at the County Juvenile Detention Center▫Later were asked if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a 2-hour trip to the zooGroup 2: Exposure Control Condition▫Undergrads listened to both requests and were then asked if they would do either oneGroup 3: Control Condition▫Undergrads just asked if they would be willing to chaperone a group of juvenile delinquents on a 2-hour trip to the zoo

The Door-in-the-Face Effect

Cialdini et al. (1975)Results ▫Significantly more in Group 1 (rejection-moderation condition) agreed to take the kids to the zoo

Group 1: 50% Group 2: 25% Group 3: 17%

Interpretation▫The motive of reciprocal concessions lead to so many more in Group 1 complying to request; contrast effect not involved here as had be suggested previously

The Door-in-the-Face Effect

ObedienceThe behavior change that comes in response to a direct order from an authority figure

Milgram (1963) •Original study included 40 male college students as the participants•Several other versions were conducted by Stanley Milgram who was a professor at Yale University

Stanley Milgram(1933-1984)

Milgram (1963)

Shock Generator

Procedure

Milgram (1963)

Deception used in several ways

Results of Milgram’s Obedience ExperimentResults of Milgram’s Obedience Experiment

Adapted from S. Milgram "Behavioral Study of Obedience" from Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Used by permission of Alexandra Milgram.

Results•In the original study, 65% went all the way and pulled the XXX 450 volt lever•Replications produced similar results

Interpretation•Detached Responsibility•Deindividuation

Why a motive to obey?

Milgram’s Obedience Experiments

Bystander Intervention

Latané & Darley (1968)•These researchers felt that social psychological processes were at work

Diffusion of Responsibility (“The Bystander Effect”)•The tendency for each group member to dilute personal responsibility for acting by spreading it among all

38 “Silent Witnesses”

A Model of InterventionLatané & Darley (1970) Posit that there are five factors in the helping process1.Notice the situation2.Interpret as emergency3.Accept responsibility4.Decide how to help5.Decide to act and provide help

Procedures•In this study, researchers pumped smoke into a lab while students filled out a questionnaire

▫Some students were left alone▫Some with 2 other real participants▫Some with 2 other confederates who pretended

nothing was wrong

A Model of Intervention

Latane & Darley (1968):Smoke Study

80808080

66006600

20202020

0000 Alone Alone

Latane & Darley (1968)Latane & Darley (1968)

Percentage Percentage Reporting Reporting

SmokeSmoke

Percentage Percentage Reporting Reporting

SmokeSmoke

44004400

With 2 other real

subjects

With 2 other real

subjects

With 2 calm confederates With 2 calm confederates

Interpretation•Being around others made people less likely to interpret smoke as an emergency; maybe less likely to pay attention to things in our environment•Pluralistic Ignorance: We don’t want to embarrass ourselves by declaring an emergency when there isn’t one, so we remain calm and expressionless

Results

Factors That Affect Helping Behavior

Darley & Batson (1973)Procedure•Students at Princeton Theological Seminary•Pretest personality measure•Half would give talk on Good Samaritan; the other half were told that they would be asked questions concerning employment prospects for seminary students

•Group 1: Some participants put in the “early” condition•Group 2: Some participants put in the “late” condition•Group 3: Some participants put in the “on time” condition

Is there time enough to be a Good Samaritan? Procedure•On their way to the next building they passed a poorly dressed man slumped in a doorway, head down, eyes closed, not moving…•As the participant moved past him, the man coughed twice and began groaning

Apparently, not…

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage

who helped

Ahead of Schedule On Time Late

Darley & Batson’s (1973)

Results

Interpretation•Time constraints have huge effect on helping behavior

What motivates helping?

Altruistic vs. Egoistic Debate•Some psychologists believe there is no such thing as pure altruism; others disagree

Credits

Some slides prepared with the help of the following websites:commfaculty.fullerton.edu/.../consistency%20and%20dissonance.ppt

Chapter 9: Cognitive Consistency & Social Motivation PSY 338: Motivation.

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 9: Cognitive Consistency & Social Motivation PSY 338: Motivation.