Transcript class 23 self affirmation

Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
"Believing Own Lies"
1. Ss perform very dull task, repeatedly.
2. Ss asked to inform next subject that the task is interesting.
3. Ss offered low pay ($1) or high pay ($20) to lie.
4. Ss later asked to rate how interesting they found the task.
Which group experiences
most dissonance?
X
$1
$20
Which group rates the task
as more interesting?
X
$1
$20
Why?
$1 = low justification  dissonance
$20 = high justification  no dissonance
Dissonance and Behavioral Control: Robbie the Robot Study
Lepper, 1972
1. Child rates toys, including desirable "Robbie the Robot".
2. E. leaves room, tells child "don't play w' Robbie, and if you do:"
a. Low threat: I will be a little annoyed with you.
b. High threat: I will be very angry, and will do something.
3. Child returns to study later, new E., can play with any toy including
R. the R.
4. Which child plays w' R the R? Low threat or high threat? Why?
Low threat
X High threat
Low threat = under-justification  dissonance
Why?
Dissonance Disrupts Behaviorism
Premise of behaviorism: Punishments are negatively reinforcing.
Question: What conditions produce more liking of neutral stims?
Neutral Stimuli
Reinforcement
Beh. Predicts
CD Shows
Dull discussion group
Embarrassment
Dislike
Liking
Fill bin with spools
Low pay
Dislike
Liking
Mediocre toys
Punishment threat
Dislike
Liking
Self Perception Theory
Challenges Cog. Dissonance
Cog. Dissonance Theory: Discordance btwn. actions and beliefs
creates negative arousal. Hence, dissonance is motivational/affective
Daryl Bem: No need to posit any underlying arousal. Could be purely
self-perception. People evaluate own actions as they would others.
NOTE: Harks back to "Symbolic Interactionism"
No internal conflict or complex motives, just attributions based on
self-observed behavior.
Testing Self-Perception Vs. Dissonance
Bem & McConnell, 1970
Premise: We infer own attitudes from our most recent behavior.
Beh. due to "insufficient justification", infer corresponding attitude.
After new attitude adopted, old attitude will be forgotten.
No "change in attitude" Instead earlier attitude "overwritten" by
self-perceived new attitude.
Method: Counter-Attitudinal Essay, low justification vs. high justification
DV:
Attitude recall
Result: Which group better recalls initial attitude, low or high justification?
High justification. Why?
Saw selves voicing views under powerful external pressure.
Views voiced under pressure probably not sincere.
Arousal as a Necessary Condition for Cog.
Diss. and Attitude Change
Cooper, Zanna, & Taves, 1978
Premise: Damn you Bem, it is arousal!!!!
If arousal, then if arousal dampened, less CD; if arousal boosted, more CD
"Attitudes will change following counter-attitudinal behavior if and only
if arousal accompanies behavior."
Method: Ss complete counter-attitudinal essay--"Should Richard Nixon be
pardoned?" Either high-choice or low choice conditions.
Before essay, as part of "separate study" Ss ingest pill. Told it is
placebo but in actuality it is either: tranquilizer, placebo, amphetamine
Tranquilizer
Predict: Attitude change in "high choice" but not if pill is _____________?
Arousal as a Necessary Condition for Cog.
Diss. and Attitude Change
Cooper, Zanna, & Taves, 1978
Tranq'zer
Class 21:
Self Affirmation
Name Calling, Compliance, and an
Alternative Means to Dissonance Reduction
Steele name-calling study:
Most dissonance studies involve S seeing self behaving contrary to
self-image. What if outside person did so?
Method: Calls housewives in Utah (why Utah?)
Housewives in one of four extp'l conditions
X
1.
2.
3.
4.
Relevant negative name: "you are not cooperative"
Relevant positive name: "you are cooperative"
Irrelevant negative name: "you are a bad driver"
No contact control group.
DV: Compliance with food co-op request, to list all foods, 2 days later.
According to Dissonance, which group should comply?
Name Calling and Compliance
Compliance
Steele, 1985
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Relevant
Negative
Relevant
Positive
Irrelevant
Negative
What explains this result?
Why didn't earlier CD research show similar result?
Control
Never checked!
The Role of the Self in Cognitive Dissonance
Dissonance induced by:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Writing essays you don’t believe in.
Reading lurid sexual text in front of leering experimenter
Lying about interest value of boring task for just $1.00
Breaking a stranger’s camera
Eating grasshoppers with minimal incentive
Waiting until 4:30 AM for space ship that never arrives
Experientially, what do these situations have in common?
Make people feel badly about themselves.
Principles of Self Affirmation Theory
1. People have a basic need to maintain fundamental sense of
self as worthy
2. After self worth has been threatened, people are motivated to
restore general integrity, not simply correct the specific
threat.
3. Motive to correct a specific threat is lessened after restoring
general sense of worthiness.
Logic of Self Affirmation vs. Dissonance
Fred is a smoker.
Fred sees self as smart and sane.
Smart, sane people don’t smoke.
How can Fred reduce psychological threat?
Cog. Diss
Self-Affirm
Change behavior "OK, I'm quitting"
Y
Y
Rationalize "I watch diet, so I'll be OK"
Y
Y
Boost self-worth "I just published an
article on cognitive dissonance!"
N
Y
Countering Dissonance by Affirming Values:
Steele & Lui, 1981
Complete Poli/Econ
Values Survey
Hold Poli/
Econ Values
Don’t Hold
Poli/Econ Values
Low Justification
(High Choice)
High Justification
(Low Choice)
No Attitude
Change
Attitude
Change
No Attitude
Change
No Attitude
Change
Dissonance and Values Affirmation
Steele & Lui, 1981
12
Compliance
10
8
6
4
2
0
Low Choice
High
Choice/No
Aff.
High
Choic/Val.
Irrel.
What explains this result?
Why didn't earlier CD research show similar result?
High
Choice/Val
Rel.
Never checked!
Dissonance and the Lab Coat
Steele & Lui, 1983
Ss pre-identified: science oriented or not science oriented
Ss rate record albums: can choose 5th or 6th favorite (choice cond)
are given either 5th or 6th favorite (no-choice cond)
While "ratings are reviewed", Ss go to "second study"
Second study: wear lab coat / don't wear lab coat
Ss return to Study 1, reveal "true attitudes" re. albums
DV: Degree of attitude change regarding albums
No Lab Coat
Lab Coat
Not Sci. oriented
Attitude change
Attitude change
Sci. oriented
Attitude change
No Attitude
change
Dissonance and the Lab Coat
Steele & Lui, 1983
Degree of Attitude Change
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
No Lab Coat
Lab Coat
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Not Science
Oriented
Science
Oriented
Self Affirmation and the Need to Judge Others
Lui & Steele, 1986
Judging others is pleasurable.
More likely to judge others when we feel less in control. Why?
Would affirmation affect tendency to judge others? Why?
Helplessness
Only
Helplessness +
Affirmation
Not Econ/Political
Values Oriented
High Judging
High Judging
Econ/Political
Values Oriented
High Judging
Low
Judging
Self Affirmation and the Need to Judge Others
Lui & Steele, 1986
7
Judging Others
6
5
Helplessness
Only
Helplessness
+Affirmation
4
3
2
1
0
Not ValueOriented
ValueOriented
Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self
Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000
Premise: People hold firmly to opinions, esp. those connected to core
values. Would flexibility re. opinions relax if self-worth affirmed. (Why?)
Method:
Ss pre-selected on favoring/not favoring capital punishment.
Ss also rank personal values "Sources of Validation" scale
Ss told study concerns memory, Complete "Personal
Memory Exercise":
Affirmation Cond: Describe 3-4 instances where they upheld
top source of validation (from S of V) scale
Control Cond: List everything they ate last 48 hrs.
Ss read & recall capital punish. essay opposed to their views
DV: How favorably is anti-attitude essay evaluated?
Reducing Biased Evaluation by Affirming the Self
Favorability Rating
Cohen, Aronson, & Steele, 2000
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
Affirmed
Not Affirmed
Self Affirmation Questions
1. If one kind of self-insult (i.e., dissonant behavior, lack of control)
can be redeemed by a very different kind of self-relevant
behavior (i.e., recalling personal values, wearing a lab coat,
cooperating with crazy survey) what does this say about the
nature of the self? Is the self a unified whole or a
conglomeration of parts?
2. How would self affirmation affect the tendency to self-blame
following a tragedy over which one has objectively little
control (like earthquake)? Why?