Cognitive Dissonance Experiment
Introduction
The cognitive dissonance experiment conducted in the mid-1950s aimed to investigate the psychological tension that arises when an individual's actions conflict with their beliefs, feelings, or values. Specifically, it explored how individuals might alter their beliefs to reduce this discomfort when there is insufficient external justification for their actions.
Methodology
Participants were asked to engage in a very boring and fatiguing task. This task involved turning wooden pegs a quarter turn to the right repeatedly until instructed to stop. The purpose was to ensure all participants had a similar negative experience. Following the task, the participants were approached with an unusual request. They were asked to tell the next waiting subject that the experiment they had just completed was very interesting and enjoyable, in fact lots of fun. To induce them to do this, participants were offered either one dollar or twenty dollars as a sort of retainer for being on call to perform this task again in the future. All the participants agreed to tell this untruth. In reality, the next subject was one of the experimenters' assistants, trained to gauge the participant's persuasiveness and their own genuine belief in what they were saying.
Findings
The results of the experiment were surprising. It was observed that those who received only one dollar for saying the dull task was interesting came to believe what they were saying. They often convinced themselves that the experiment was actually fun and reported that they enjoyed the manual tasks. When asked how much they learned, some of the one-dollar subjects initially felt they hadn't learned much, but upon reflection, found the task quite interesting and felt it got better after a while. They even indicated a willingness to participate in such an experiment again. This change in opinion is understood as a way to reduce the dissonance they experienced between knowing the task was boring and claiming it was enjoyable, particularly when the financial incentive for lying was minimal. They had two discrepant thoughts: the task was dull, and they said it was fun, but they had insufficient justification for saying it wasn't.
In contrast, those who were paid twenty dollars felt they had sufficient justification for lying. They knew the task was dull, but the substantial payment made their behaviour of telling someone it was fun feel justified. As a result, they experienced no significant dissonance and reported that the manual test really wasn't too enjoyable, in fact, it was rather boring. They did not need to change their belief about the task's dullness because the large payment provided a reasonable explanation for their lie.
Implications
This experiment demonstrated that when individuals act in a way that contradicts their beliefs with minimal external reward, they are likely to experience cognitive dissonance. To alleviate this discomfort, they may unconsciously adjust their beliefs to align with their actions. The findings suggest that people come to believe in and to love the things they have to suffer for or for which they have insufficient external justification. This challenges the intuitive idea that greater rewards lead to greater persuasion or belief change. Instead, it suggests that when the incentive is small, individuals are motivated to internally justify their actions by altering their attitudes. The experiment highlights the power of cognitive dissonance in shaping beliefs and behaviours.