Cognitive dissonance

What it says

Dissonance is the discomfort of holding two things that do not fit, most sharply when one of them is something you just did. The theory says people reduce the discomfort, and that they change whichever part is easiest to change. Usually that is the belief, not the behavior.

The one dollar result follows from that. A volunteer paid twenty dollars to tell a stranger the task was fun has an easy explanation for saying it: the money. A volunteer paid one dollar does not, so the cheapest repair available is to decide the task really was somewhat interesting.

The same logic covers two other patterns. Effort justification is why something you worked hard to get looks better afterward. Post decision dissonance is why the option you chose starts looking better than the one you turned down, after the choice rather than before.

Where it shows up

Four situations the theory covers, with what it predicts in each.

1. Saying something you do not believe

   With no good external reason for saying it, the belief shifts toward what you said.

2. Effort you cannot take back

   The harder something was to get, the better it looks once you have it.

3. A decision between two close options

   The chosen one gains and the rejected one loses, measured after the choice.

4. A prediction that failed

   Belief can harden rather than drop, especially where the believer is surrounded by others who committed too.

Where it came from

Festinger set the theory out in 1957. Two years earlier he and his colleagues had followed a small group that expected the world to end on a fixed date. The date passed and the believers recommitted. That study is published as When Prophecy Fails.

The experiment everybody cites is Festinger and James Carlsmith in 1959. Volunteers spent an hour turning pegs, then were asked to tell the next participant it was enjoyable, for one dollar or for twenty.

What holds up, and what does not

The induced compliance finding is among the most reproduced results in social psychology. The broad claim has held up across many designs: people repair an inconsistency by moving the cheapest piece.

Two qualifications matter. Daryl Bem argued in 1967 that no discomfort is needed. People read their own attitudes off their own behavior, which predicts the same outcome from a simpler mechanism. The argument is not fully settled. The free choice paradigm was also criticized in 2010, for a statistical artifact. People choose what they already prefer, so the chosen option can look better afterward with no attitude change at all (Chen and Risen).

What it does not mean

It is a theory about repairing inconsistency, not a way to tell when somebody is lying to themselves. Dissonance is uncomfortable, not a flaw, and the same mechanism that defends a bad decision also makes an effort worth something.

Check yourself

Three questions on what is above. Each answer says why.

1. Why did the volunteers paid one dollar rate the task as more interesting?

   1. One dollar felt insulting, so they complied harder
   2. They had no external reason for what they said, so the cheapest repair was to shift the belief
   3. They had less time to think about the task
   Show the answer

   Answer: B. Twenty dollars explains the behavior by itself. One dollar does not, so the inconsistency is repaired by moving the attitude.

2. Pick the statement that describes effort justification.

   1. The harder something was to get, the better it looks afterward
   2. People work harder when they are paid more
   3. Effort reduces interest in a task
   Show the answer

   Answer: A. Effort you cannot take back is an inconsistency unless the thing was worth it, so the valuation rises.

3. What is the rival account Bem offered in 1967?

   1. That dissonance is physical, not mental
   2. That people read their attitudes off their own behavior, with no discomfort needed
   3. That the original experiment was never run
   Show the answer

   Answer: B. Self perception theory predicts the same result from a simpler mechanism, which is why the debate lasted.

Sources

1. Festinger, L., Riecken, H. W., and Schachter, S. (1956). When Prophecy Fails. University of Minnesota Press.
2. Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
3. Festinger, L., and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2).
4. Bem, D. J. (1967). Self perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74(3).
5. Chen, M. K., and Risen, J. L. (2010). How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free choice paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(4).

Practice it on Learn

More theories

• Defense mechanisms

  Defense mechanisms explained: eight of the common ones with everyday examples, where the list came from, and how much of it modern research supports.

• Social identity theory

  Social identity theory explained: the three steps, the minimal group experiments behind it, and what it does and does not say about prejudice.

• The Milgram experiment

  The Milgram obedience experiment: what the 1963 study did, the 65 percent figure, how the variations changed it, and what later work says it shows.