The effects of behaviour on attitudes
The research issue
Before this experiment was conducted, most researchers were primarily interested in the effects of attitudes on behaviour.In contrast, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) set out to show that our behaviour can occasionally be awkwardly inconsistent with our true attitude and, to resolve this uncomfortable inconsistency, we may change our attitude to match the behaviour. The experiment consisted of three stages. In the first stage, the experimenter attempted to make participants dislike a series of boring tasks. Participants were falsely told that they were taking part in a study of ‘measures of performance’.They were asked to put 12 spools on a tray, empty the tray, and refill it. Participants repeated this task for half an hour, using one hand, while the experimenter pretended to record their performance. Next, participants were asked to use one hand to turn 48 square pegs on a board (a quarter turn one way, then the other way) for half an hour, while the experimenter continued to monitor their performance. Presumably, participants came to hate these dull tasks. In the second stage, the experimenter asked the participants to tell a new participant that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. The experimenter justified this request by stating that he was comparing the performance of participants who had been told nothing about the task with the performance of participants who had been gi ven specific, positive expectations.The experimenter indicated that his colleague usually gave specific (positive) information to participants, but that this colleague had not arrived yet.The experimenter then asked whether the participant could temporarily fill in and be ‘on call’ for future elements of the study. Virtually all of the participants agreed to this request. The participants then attempted to persuade the next participant (who was actually a confederate of the experimenter) that the tasks were interesting, fun, enjoyable, intriguing and exciting.In the third stage, participants were asked to meet an interviewer to answer questions about the previous tasks (e.g. turning the pegs). One of the questions was about the extent to which participants enjoyed the tasks. Festinger and Carlsmith expected that participants’ intervening behaviour would cause them to like the tasks to a greater extent only when they believed they had been given little external incentive for engaging in the behaviour. If the behaviour was performed with little reward, participants should feel a need to justify the behaviour to themselves. To do this, they should change their attitude to support the behaviour. In other words, participants should come to believe that they actually liked the tasks that they had undertaken during the intervening period. To test this reasoning, the experiment included a crucial manipulation: participants were offered either $20 (a lot of money in the 1950s!) or $1 to describe the dull tasks favourably to the other ‘participant’.
Results and implications
As shown in figure 17.5, the results support this prediction. After the experimental manipulation, participants were more favourably disposed towards the tasks if they had been offered $1 than if they had been offered $20. In addition, participants who were offered $1 were more favourably disposed than those who were not asked to say anything about the tasks (control condition). Overall, these results support cognitive dissonance theory by showing that people can alter their attitudes to justify their past behaviour. Since this experiment, abundant research has shown that this attitude change helps to reduce an unpleasant arousal that people experience after performing the attitude-incongruent behaviour, while also finding some limitations to this effect (see Cooper & Fazio, 1984).
The research issue
Before this experiment was conducted, most researchers were primarily interested in the effects of attitudes on behaviour.In contrast, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) set out to show that our behaviour can occasionally be awkwardly inconsistent with our true attitude and, to resolve this uncomfortable inconsistency, we may change our attitude to match the behaviour. The experiment consisted of three stages. In the first stage, the experimenter attempted to make participants dislike a series of boring tasks. Participants were falsely told that they were taking part in a study of ‘measures of performance’.They were asked to put 12 spools on a tray, empty the tray, and refill it. Participants repeated this task for half an hour, using one hand, while the experimenter pretended to record their performance. Next, participants were asked to use one hand to turn 48 square pegs on a board (a quarter turn one way, then the other way) for half an hour, while the experimenter continued to monitor their performance. Presumably, participants came to hate these dull tasks. In the second stage, the experimenter asked the participants to tell a new participant that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. The experimenter justified this request by stating that he was comparing the performance of participants who had been told nothing about the task with the performance of participants who had been gi ven specific, positive expectations.The experimenter indicated that his colleague usually gave specific (positive) information to participants, but that this colleague had not arrived yet.The experimenter then asked whether the participant could temporarily fill in and be ‘on call’ for future elements of the study. Virtually all of the participants agreed to this request. The participants then attempted to persuade the next participant (who was actually a confederate of the experimenter) that the tasks were interesting, fun, enjoyable, intriguing and exciting.In the third stage, participants were asked to meet an interviewer to answer questions about the previous tasks (e.g. turning the pegs). One of the questions was about the extent to which participants enjoyed the tasks. Festinger and Carlsmith expected that participants’ intervening behaviour would cause them to like the tasks to a greater extent only when they believed they had been given little external incentive for engaging in the behaviour. If the behaviour was performed with little reward, participants should feel a need to justify the behaviour to themselves. To do this, they should change their attitude to support the behaviour. In other words, participants should come to believe that they actually liked the tasks that they had undertaken during the intervening period. To test this reasoning, the experiment included a crucial manipulation: participants were offered either $20 (a lot of money in the 1950s!) or $1 to describe the dull tasks favourably to the other ‘participant’.
Results and implications
As shown in figure 17.5, the results support this prediction. After the experimental manipulation, participants were more favourably disposed towards the tasks if they had been offered $1 than if they had been offered $20. In addition, participants who were offered $1 were more favourably disposed than those who were not asked to say anything about the tasks (control condition). Overall, these results support cognitive dissonance theory by showing that people can alter their attitudes to justify their past behaviour. Since this experiment, abundant research has shown that this attitude change helps to reduce an unpleasant arousal that people experience after performing the attitude-incongruent behaviour, while also finding some limitations to this effect (see Cooper & Fazio, 1984).
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J.M., 1959, ‘Cognitive consequences of forced compliance’, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203–10.
No comments:
Post a Comment