Project Report

Experiment on Cognitive Dissonance by Festinger and Carlsmith

By Group 5 – Niyati Bagla, Tanya Dewan, Saisha Singh, Pulkit Sharma, Afeefa
Fazli, Nishtha Moudgil

1. Background

“If I chose to do it or say it, I must believe in it.” asserts the psychologist Leon Festinger.

Leon Festinger was an American social psychologist at Stanford University. He investigated

and gave Cognitive dissonance theory. What Festinger observed, and what became the
central premise of his entire theory, was the simple fact that human beings like consistency.
Furthermore, human beings strive to reduce inconsistency; that is, people are motivated to do
something in order to eliminate the feelings of discomfort that result from what he called
'non-fitting relations among cognitions"
The roots of cognitive dissonance lay in a small grant from the Ford Foundation which
allowed Festinger to study and integrate work in mass media and interpersonal
communication. Festinger and his colleagues took on the project and what perplexed them
was reading a report about a 1934 Indian earthquake. What puzzled Festinger were the
rumours that circulated after the devastating earthquake. Those rumours predicted of an even
more devastating earthquake were coming. Therefore, they started studying how and why
rumours spread. People who lived in a region of the country that had felt the shock but were
spared death and destruction began circulating rumours that other terrible disasters were
about to befall them -- a cyclone, a flood, another earthquake or "unforeseeable calamities."

Festinger wondered, why would rumours arise that provoked rather than allayed anxiety,
especially among people who hadn't suffered any immediate loss? And why were the
rumours so widely accepted?

His conclusion derailed his analysis of rumours and put him on the track of a milestone in
psychological theory: When feelings and facts are in opposition, people will find -- or invent
-- a way to reconcile them. The people who had narrowly escaped the earthquake were
scared, but their fear seemed largely unjustified. The rumours provided people with
information that fit how they already felt, reducing what Mr. Festinger called their "cognitive
dissonance."

There was also a study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a
flood, and dealt with what happened to its members- particularly the really committed ones
who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult- when the flood actually did not
even happen. While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made
fools of themselves, the committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to
show that they were right all along (believing that the earth was not destroyed because of this
faithfulness of the cult members). This incidence led to Festinger’s increased interest in the
study of cognitive dissonance.
 2. Introduction

Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs or

behaviours. This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of
the attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to reduce the discomfort and restore balance. For example,
when people smoke (behaviour) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they
are in a state of cognitive dissonance.
There are certain ways in which we can regulate dissonance:
1. Changing the attitude.
2. Altering the behaviour.
3. Removing the conflicting belief.
4. Assuming that inconsistency actually does not matter. In other words, we engage in
trivialization, that is either the attitudes or the behaviours is not important. Thus, any
inconsistency between them is of no importance.
Each of these strategies can be viewed as direct methods of dissonance reduction.
There are indirect methods of reduction too. Basic discrepancy between the attitude
and behaviour is left intact; the unpleasant or negative feelings attached or generated
by dissonance can be reduced, for example by consuming alcohol. But this can only
happen when the attitude-behaviour discrepancy involves important attitudes of self-
beliefs. Under these conditions, the individuals experiencing dissonance may not
focus on reducing attitude-behaviour discrepancy, but instead on other methods that
will allow them to feel good about themselves despite the gap. Specifically, people
can engage in self-affirmations which is restoring positive self-evaluations that are
threatened by the dissonance. This can be accomplished by focusing on positive self-
attributes-good things about oneself.
Example: Consider someone who buys an expensive car but discovers that it is not
comfortable on long drives. Dissonance exists between their beliefs that they have
bought a good car and that a good car should be comfortable. Dissonance could be
eliminated by deciding that it does not matter since the car is mainly used for short
trips (reducing the importance of the dissonant belief) or focusing on the cars
strengths such as safety, appearance, handling (thereby adding more consonant
beliefs). The dissonance could also be eliminated by getting rid of the car, but this
behaviour is a lot harder to achieve than changing beliefs.
In the first case, Trivialization is used because we are giving least importance to the
inconsistency. Second, we are using the indirect method because despite the gap we
are focusing on other aspects which will reduce the unpleasant feeling. Third, we
could use a direct method wherein there will be change in the behaviour and keeping
the cognition intact, i.e. getting rid of the car itself.

3. The Experiment
a) Aim: To understand when and why do people engage in attitude discrepant behavior
and when they don’t and what the role of reward is in the same.

b) Hypothesis: The larger the reward given to the subject, the smaller will be the
subsequent opinion change.

c) Independent Variable: Reward ($1 or $20)

d) Dependent Variable: Change in attitude/opinion

e) Constants: Gender (male); educational qualification; and engagement in attitude

discrepant behavior (lying)

f) Method: Controlled, laboratory experiment

g) Sample: 71 male Undergraduate psychology students at Stanford University

h) Procedure

1. Seventy-one male students in the introductory psychology course at Stanford

University were used in the experiment. Students were required to spend a certain
number of hours as subjects in experiments.
2. The experiment was listed as a two-hour experiment dealing with "Measures of
Performance."
3. During the first week of the course, when the requirement of serving in experiments
was announced and explained to the students, the instructor also told them about a study
that psychology department was conducting. He explained that, since they were
required to serve in experiments, the department was conducting a study to evaluate
these experiments in order to be able to improve them in the future. They were told that
a sample of students would be interviewed after having served as subjects.
4. When the subjects arrived for the experiment on "Measures of Performance" they had
to wait for a few minutes in the secretary's office. The experimenter then came in,
introducing himself to the subjects and, together, they walked into the laboratory room
where the E said:
“This experiment usually takes a little over an hour but, of course, we had to
schedule it for two hours. Since we have that extra time, the introductory
psychology people asked if they could interview some our subjects. [Offhand
and conversationally.] Did they announce that in class? I gather that they're
interviewing some people who have been in experiments. I don't know much
about it. Anyhow, they may want to interview you when you're through here”
5. With no further introduction or explanation, the subjects were shown the first task,
which involved putting 12 spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, refilling it with spools,
and so on. They were told to use one hand and to work at their own speed. They did
this for one-half hour.
 6. The experimenter then removed the tray and spools and placed in front of the subjects
a board containing 48 square pegs. His task was to turn each peg a quarter turn
clockwise, then another quarter turn, and so on. Subjects were told again to use one
hand and to work at their own speeds. The subjects worked at this task for another half
hour.
7. The hour which the subjects spent working on the repetitive, monotonous tasks was
intended to provide, for each subject uniformly, an experience about which they would
have a somewhat negative opinion.
8. After the tasks were over, the experimenter requested the subjects to take place of their
confederate due to his absence. The participants were requested to greet and convey to
the next batch of participants that the task they are about to do is extremely fun and
interesting.
9. There were 11 exceptions. 5 of the paid subjects, (Three $1 and two $20) were highly
suspicious about being paid to say that that task was interesting –this led them to
question the actual purpose of the experiment. 2 of the paid subjects (both $1) told the
next participant that the task was boring but they were being paid to lie; so they
basically disclosed the truth. 3 subjects declined to be hired for neither $1 nor $20. One
subject gave a positive spin to the next participant but then asked for her number so that
he could explain things to her later. He told the experimenter that he wanted to wait
until the girl was finished so that he could speak to her about the experiment. Once the
performances of these 11 subjects were discounted, the remaining subjects were divided
into three groups: Group 1 was given $1, Group 2 was given $20 and Group 3 i.e. the
control group was not made a request to lie.
10. Next, the participants were asked to report their own attitudes towards the boring and
tedious task.
11. The participants were interviewed about how interesting the tasks were, how much they
learned, the scientific importance and whether they would participate in a similar experiment
in the future.

4. Result

a) Group 1 ($1 condition) exhibited large attitude change

b) Group 2 ($20) condition displayed no attitude change
c) Group 3 (control group) showed no attitude change
Table 1 depicts the average ratings in the interview questions for each condition that were asked
from the subjects at the end of the study.

a) How enjoyable the tasks were:

- As mentioned before, the tasks were purposely arranged to be rather boring and
monotonous. And, indeed, in the Control condition the average rating was -.45,
somewhat on the negative side of the neutral point.
- In the other two conditions, however, the subjects told someone that these tasks were
interesting and enjoyab1e. The resulting dissonance could, of course, most directly be
reduced by persuading themselves that the tasks were, indeed, interesting and
enjoyable. In the One Dollar condition, since the magnitude of dissonance was high,
the pressure to reduce this dissonance would also be high. In this condition, the
average rating was +1.35, considerably on the positive side and significantly different
from the Control condition.
- In the Twenty Dollar condition, where less dissonance was created experimentally
because of the greater importance of the consonant relations, there is correspondingly
less evidence of dissonance reduction. The average rating in this condition is only -
.05, slightly and not significantly higher than the Control condition
- In short, when a subject was induced, by offer of reward, to say something contrary to
his private opinion, this private opinion tended to change so as to correspond more
closely with what he had said. The greater the reward offered the smaller was the
effect.
 b) Desire to participate in similar experiment again

- This question is less directly related to the dissonance that was experimentally created
- Certainly, the more interesting and enjoyable they felt the tasks were, the greater
would be their desire to participate in a similar experiment. But other factors would
enter also. Hence, one would expect the results on this question to be very similar to
the results on "how enjoyable the tasks were" but weaker. Actually, the result, as may
be seen in the table, are in exactly the same direction, and the magnitude of the mean
differences is fully as large as on the first question

c) Scientific importance of the experiment

- This question was included because there was a chance that differences might emerge.
There are, after all, other ways in which the experimentally created dissonance could
be reduced. For example, one way would be for the subject to magnify for himself the
value of the reward he obtained. This, however, was unlikely in this experiment
because money was used for the reward and it is undoubtedly difficult to convince
oneself that one dollar is more than it really is.
- There is another possible way, however. The subjects were given a very good reason,
in addition to being paid, for saying what they did to the waiting girl. The subjects
were told it was necessary for the experiment. The dissonance could, consequently, be
reduced by magnifying the importance of this cognition.
- The more scientifically important they considered the experiment to be, the less was
the total magnitude of dissonance. It is possible, then, that the results on this question,
shown in the third row of figures in Table 1, might reflect dissonance reduction.
- The results are weakly in line with what one would expect if the dissonance were
somewhat reduced in this manner. The One Dollar condition is higher than the other
two.

d) How much the subjects learnt from the experiment:

- The results on this question are shown in the second row of figures in Table 1. The
question was included because, as far as we could see, it had nothing to do with the
dissonance that was experimentally created and could not be used for dissonance
reduction.
- One would then expect no differences at all among the three conditions. We felt it
was important to show that the effect was not a completely general one but was
specific to the content of the dissonance which was created.
- As can be readily seen in Table 1, there are only negligible differences among
conditions.

5. Interpretation

The concepts derived from the study were:

A. Insufficient Justification
 1. The participants who were paid $20 rated the task as less interesting than participants
who were paid $1 because they had more justification for their attitude discrepant
behavior. Simply put, the participants in the $20 condition could think of a legitimate
and good enough reason to lie to the next batch of participants about the nature of the
task.
2. On the other hand, the participants in the $1 condition did not have a justifiable reason
to engage in a behavior that was not in alignment with their opinions or attitudes about
the task.
3. Thirdly, the participants in the control group weren’t requested to lie, hence, they did
not experience dissonance. As a result, attitude change did not occur.
4. Whenever there is a situation of a discrepancy between one’s attitude and behavior,
there is ‘dissonance’ in the mind of the person and that causes discomfort and
uneasiness.
5. Therefore, if the participants do not have a sufficient and adequate justification or
reasoning for their engagement in the attitude discrepant behavior ($1 condition), the
dissonance and the discomfort would be larger, hence, attitude change would be larger.
This is because humans, as rationalizing beings, put in efforts in changing either their
behavior or their thoughts to reduce the dissonance and bring their attitude and
behaviors back into equilibrium, thus leading to a mental equilibrium ensuring effective
functioning. Due to a greater need to reduce the discomfort, these participants changed
their attitudes and ultimately claimed that the task was interesting and they would like
to participate in it again. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to
believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. When paid only $1, students
were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had
no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, it is argued, had an obvious external
justification for their overt behaviour.
6. In the case of $20 condition, the participants faced smaller dissonance due to greater
and stronger reasons for engaging in a behavior conflicting with the attitude. As a result,
attitude change was weaker. They continued to feel and convey to the experimenter that
the task was boring.

Strong reasons
for engaging in Attitude
Dissonance
attitude is weak change is small
discrepant
behavior
 Weak reasons
for engaging in Attitude
Dissonance
attitude change is large
is strong
discrepant
behavior

B. ‘Less leads to more’ effect

1. The cognitive dissonance theory predicts that it will be easier to change an individual’s
attitudes by offering them just enough to get them to encourage in an attitude discrepant
behavior.
2. This effect states that less reasons or rewards for an action often lead to greater attitude
changes.
3. The more amount of money or other rewards are offered to people for them to engage
in a behavior that conflicts with their attitudes provides them a justification or reason
for their actions and can undermine the likelihood that attitude change will occur.
4. Small rewards lead to greater dissonance and greater attitude change because the people
believe that they are personally responsible for both the chosen course of action and
any negative effects it produces.
5. However, if ordered by an authority to do a particular attitude discrepant behavior, one
may not feel ‘responsible’ and may not experience dissonance.
6. Put simply, the experimenters concluded that many human beings, when persuaded to
lie without being given sufficient justification, will carry out the task by convincing
themselves of the falsehood, rather than telling a bald lie.

6. Relevance of cognitive dissonance in everyday life

a) You can think of cognitions as beliefs. If you like smoking then this is a cognition. On
the other hand, knowing that smoking is harmful is another cognition. Now when 2
cognitions (like the ones mentioned) are dissonant then you can call this phenomenon
cognitive dissonance. Because most people who smoke know that smoking is bad
they experience cognitive dissonance. Because cognitive dissonance is not
comfortable, smokers tend to alter their beliefs intentionally just to get rid of the
cognitive dissonance.
One example would be altering the beliefs about the dangers of smoking by saying
something like "i know a 70 years old man who smokes since he was 20 and who is
very healthy". As you can see the smoker in this case eliminated cognitive dissonance
by distorting his beliefs. While some people overcome cognitive dissonance of
smoking by reminding themselves every now and then that they can give up smoking
any time they want even though they have failed to do this several times before.
 Some smokers get rid of cognitive dissonance by adding new cognitions such as "I
don't drink, so smoking won't harm me anyway as am a healthy person"
Another group of smokers prevent cognitive dissonance by escaping from any new
facts that would assist in the formation of cognitive dissonance. For example, those
smokers might refrain from reading any recent studies that talk about the dangers of
smoking.

b) Now, if you value helping the poor, it's one cognition. And then you have a tendency
to brush past people on the street who are begging for money, it's another cognition.
So here you might try to resolve the dissonance by reasoning that you already
contribute money to shelters or volunteer in soup kitchens. Or maybe you change
your actions and start giving money to people on the street. Or perhaps you change
your beliefs and decide that the poor don’t deserve help.

c) Another common example of cognitive dissonance is the rationalization that takes

place when people dieting “cheat.” How many times have you committed to healthy
eating when a doughnut, muffin, or another delicious-looking food item threatened to
take you off course? Maybe you thought, “Eh, it’s only one doughnut. I’ll skip lunch
today to make up for the calories.” Or you tell yourself, “It’s not actually that many
calories.”

d) Let’s consider a relationship. Mary meets Jack (let’s say on a Tinder date or
something) and they hit it off pretty much straight away. After dating for only a short
time they move in together. Both are totally smitten with the other. Mary starts
thinking to herself that Jack is ‘the one’. Everything in their relationship is going
really well, and they’re both very happy. At this point they have been together 6
months, and lived together for most of that. Mary feels as though she knows Jack
reasonably well. She feels as though she can kind of predict what Jack will and won’t
do in some situations. Mary loves Jack and Jack loves Mary. Then this happens: One
night Jack lashes out. He hits Mary on the cheek. It isn’t hard enough to bruise her,
but it’s still very painful and distressing. Mary is hurt – physically, and emotionally.
More than that, she’s confused: “Why did Jack do this?” She really thought, and still
thinks, she knew him well. Now Mary has a cognitive dilemma: on the one hand, she
really loves Jack and believes that he really loves her, but on the other hand his
behavior was horrible, and not what you would expect from someone who loves you.
Mary experiences cognitive dissonance: She loves Jack (attitude A) but she doesn’t
love his behavior (attitude B)
Because the cognitive dissonance she experiences makes her feel uncomfortable, one
of these attitudes has to change. To ‘solve’ the dissonance, the mind needs to make it
so that the attitudes are consistent. Essentially, Mary has a tough choice to make in
order to rid herself of the uncomfortable dissonance. She can...i) accept the behavior
and rationalize staying in the relationship by convincing herself that there is some
other reason for her staying (“my parents will be upset”, “Jack has plenty of money”
etc.); ii) Accept the behavior, possibly rationalizing it somehow (“he was
drunk/stressed”, he got carried away”, “he has redeeming qualities,” etc.). This can
result in the modification of attitude B or iii) End the relationship. (she doesn’t love
Jack’s behavior OR Jack)

e) Another example is a bit controversial and debatable, 14 February 2019, a convoy of

vehicles carrying security personnel on the Jammu Srinagar National Highway was
 attacked by a vehicle-borne suicide bomber at Lethpora (near Awantipora) in the
Pulwama district, Jammu and Kashmir, India. The attack resulted in the death of 40
Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) personnel and the attacker. The responsibility
for the attack was claimed by the Pakistan-based Islamist militant group Jaish-e-
Mohammed. A local youth named Adil Ahmed Dar was identified as the
attacker. Prime minister, India and all of us salutes killed CRPF soldiers, people have
been arrested for making objectionable remarks on Pulwama attack. The authorities
congratulate themselves on putting a terrorist away.
However, if evidence later proves that the man punished is in fact, innocent, the
authorities will still claim that they've arrested and tried the right man. The evidence
may be incorrect, but they are not. The authorities believe they are the saviours, godly
image of the society what they do is always for the nation. To deal with this cognitive
dissonance, or the instability of mental state. They would either change their beliefs to
match their actions, or change their actions to match their beliefs.

7. Criticisms

a) Behaviourist approach over cognitive approach

Cognitive dissonance theory has been criticized by those who take a more
behaviourist approach than a cognitive approach. They support a competing theory
called self-perception theory which basically states that one's attitude is a reflection of
one's behaviour, and there is no need to hypothesize any motivational drive to reduce
dissonance. More recently, scientists have come to understand that both theories have
their place, and both are useful.

b) Scientific approach

There has been a great deal of research into cognitive dissonance, providing some
interesting and sometimes unexpected findings. It is a theory with very broad
applications, showing that we aim for consistency between attitudes and behaviours,
and may not use very rational methods to achieve it. It has the advantage of being
testable by scientific means (i.e., experiments). However, there is a problem from a
scientific point of view, because we cannot physically observe cognitive dissonance,
and therefore we cannot objectively measure it (re: behaviourism). Consequently, the
term cognitive dissonance is somewhat subjective.

c) Perception or Feeling

There is also some ambiguity (i.e., vagueness) about the term 'dissonance' itself. Is it a
perception (as 'cognitive' suggests), or a feeling, or a feeling about a perception?
Aronson's Revision of the idea of dissonance as an inconsistency between a person's
self-concept and a cognition about their behaviour makes it seem likely that
dissonance is really nothing more than guilt.

d) Prediction of the theory

There are also individual differences in whether or not people act as this theory
predicts. Highly anxious people are more likely to do so. Many people seem able to
 cope with considerable dissonance and not experience the tensions the theory
predicts.

e) Low ecological validity

Finally, many of the studies supporting the theory of cognitive dissonance have
low ecological validity. For example, turning pegs (as in Festinger's experiment) is an
artificial task that doesn’t happen in everyday life. Also, the majority of experiments
used students as participants, which raise issues of a biased sample.

f) Forced participation

All the seventy-one mail participants who were selected as sample were students of
Introductory psychology taught by Festinger. So, Festinger had forced and
pressurized all of them to participate in the study and they did not have the free will to
disagree or reject. Also, during the tasks, none of the students were allowed to back
out or give up even if they voluntarily wanted to.

8. Conclusion

a) If a person is induced to do or say something which is contrary to his private

opinion, there will be a tendency for him to change his opinion so as to bring it into
correspondence with what he has done or said.

b) The larger the pressure used to elicit the overt behaviour (beyond the minimum
needed to elicit it) the weaker will be the above-mentioned tendency.

c) Smaller justification for engagement in attitude discrepant behaviour creates larger

dissonance, resulting in greater mental discomfort. Thus, attitude change is large.

d) Larger justification for engaging in attitude discrepant behaviour creates smaller

dissonance and lesser discomfort. Thus, attitude change is small.

e) The larger the reward given to the subject, the smaller will be the subsequent opinion
change. Thus, the hypothesis was proven to be true.