CH 6 - Self Justification PDF

Preview

Summary

psych 231 online the need to justify our actions, cognitive dissonance, biases...

Description

PSYCH 231: CHAPTER 6 – SELF-JUSTIFICATION

Cult Example of Self-Justification 

Marshall Applewhite founded the Heaven’s Gate group



Cult members believed a spaceship (headed for paradise) was behind the HaleBopp comet



39 members killed themselves to get a ride on the spaceship



Prior to this, cult members had bought an expensive telescope so they could spot the spaceship, but they couldn’t see it



What do you think cult members did when they couldn’t see it? o Returned it for a refund



Members were considered, by neighbors, to be pleasant, smart, and reasonable



Assuming they weren’t crazy…why would they go along with this?



This behavior was an extreme example of a normal human tendency o The need to justify our actions

Need to Justify Our Actions 

Most humans strive to maintain a favorable view of themselves, especially when we encounter evidence that contradicts our typically positive self image



Most people want to believe that they are reasonable people who make wise decisions, and that we do not do stupid, cruel, or absurd things



This is based on the need for SELF-ESTEEM



We feel uncomfortable when we are confronted with information that we have implied in a way we feel is irrational, immoral, stupid, or contradictory to our beliefs

Cognitive Dissonance 

Cognitive: related to cognition (thinking)



Dissonance: a tension or clash resulting from the combination of two disharmonious or unsuitable elements



The feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that runs counter to one’s customary concept of oneself



Everyone experiences this at one time or another



It is the most powerful and most upsetting when people behave in ways that threaten their self image



We don’t like this feeling so we always try to reduce it



How to reduce it: o By changing our behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition o By attempting to justify our behavior by changing one of the dissonant cognitions o By attempting to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions



Changing dissonance cognitions (which may involve distorting reality) is our attempt to preserve our self-esteem, but we may also try to bolster our selfesteem in another domain to make up for it



We tend to worry about negative events in the future that could cause cognitive dissonance, and in doing o tend to underestimate how successfully we will actually be at reducing dissonance

Self-Affirmation 

This can break a negative thought cycle



This is good if you change your behavior for the better by confronting this, but can be a problem if you go for easy “good feelings” instead

Impact Bias 

The tendency to overestimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions to future negative events



The process of relieving cognitive dissonance is largely unconscious



Example 1: 2006 – reasoning areas of brain virtually shut down when confronted with dissonant information

Cognitive Dissonance During Decision Making 

In any decision, the chosen alternative is rarely 100% positive, and the rejected alternative is rarely 100% negative



So, every time we make a decision, we are experiencing dissonance

Reduction of Dissonance 

You reduce dissonance by downplaying the negative aspects of the one you chose and the positive aspects of the one you rejected



Postdecision Dissonance: Dissonance aroused after making a decision, typically reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternatives



The more important or permanent the decision, the greater the dissonance that arises

Taking Advantage of Our Tendency to Feel Cognitive Dissonance 

When a situation is believed to be irrevocable, dissonance is higher o Salespeople develop techniques for creating the illusion that irrevocability exists o Frequently, the customer will agree to make the purchase at the inflated price



Lowballing: A strategy where a salesperson induces a customer to agree to purchase a product at a very low cost, subsequently claims it was an error, and then raises the price; dissonance compels us to maintain agreement

Dissonance and Moral Dilemmas 

Moral dilemmas often cause dissonance and involve power implications for our self-esteem



How we choose to deal with our dissonance following a difficult moral decision can cause people to behave either more or less ethically in the future



Even when people have similar attitudes about a moral dilemma, their choice tends to greatly change their attitude in divergent ways (significantly increasing or decreasing their attitude)



Reducing cognitive dissonance in moral dilemmas often involved a significant change in our system of values

Mills Cheating Experiment 

1958, gave 6 th graders an “impossible” test after a pre-test measure of their attitudes towards cheating



Left room and kept camera running



Students who cheated lowered their negative impression and students who didn’t raised their negative impressions

Biological Basis for Cognitive Dissonance 

Dissonant information: reasoning circuits of the brain shut down



Reduction of dissonance: pleasurable emotion circuits activated



Universal across cultures but content may vary

Justifying Your Effort 

Justification Effort : the tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain



External Justification: a reason or an explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual



Internal Justification: the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (aka believing your own lie)

Festinger’s Experiment 

Cover story



The effect of “interest instructions” on performance on a boring task



IV = $ for telling a lie

o $20 for large external justification “sufficient” o $1 small external justification “insufficient” (lie) 

Rated the task as significantly more enjoyable



Reduced dissonance via internal justification

o $0 no lie 

DV = enjoyment of the task

Counterattitudinal Advocacy 

When there is sufficient external justification, people have no need to change their attitude (no dissonance)



If not, look for internal justification ($1 ^^)



Counterattitudinal Advocacy: the process by which people are induced to state publicly an attitude that runs counter to their own attitude o Race relations o Preventing AIDS o Reducing road rage



How can we change attitudes? o Hypocrisy Paradigm: saying one thing and doing another makes someone uncomfortable and makes a person aware of the conflict between attitudes and behavior o Hypocrisy creates dissonance, which you can reduce by changing behavior

Punishment and Self-Persuasion 

If threat of punishment for engaging in a forbidden behavior is severe, there is sufficient external justification for refraining from behavior



If punishment is less severe, there is insufficient external justification, it creates greater need for internal justification, and it changes attitudes via selfpersuasion if it works

Forbidden Toy Study 

Children rated the attractiveness of toys, then were forbidden to play with the one they found most attractive



IV = severity of threatened punishment



½ children threat of mild punishment if they disobeyed and played with toy o Forbidden toy was rated as less attractice o External justification was insufficient o Resolved dissonance through internal justification o Change attitude about toy



½ children threat of severe punishment o Forbidden toy remained highly attractive o No change in attitude o Had sufficient external justification for resisting toy



DV = rating of toy attractiveness

Self-Persuasion 

A long-lasting form of attitude change that results from attempts at selfjustification



Large reward/severe punishment  external justification (I do or think this because I have to)  temporary change



Small reward/mild punishment  internal justification (I do or think this because I have convinced myself that it’s right)  lasting change

The Ben Franklin Effect 

Justifying acts of kindness



If we do something nice for someone we don’t like, we experience dissonance

Hating Our Victims: Justifying Cruelty 

Cruel behavior is dissonant with view of self as a decent human being o Resolve dissonance by changing thoughts about victim



“Boys will be boys” excuse



Think social inequality



David and Jones (1990) students insulted a confederate



Bersheid, Boye, Walster (1968) participants delivered shocks to victims who could and could not retaliate

Dehumanizing Victims 

This tendency to derogate our victims – can lea to continuation/escalation of violence



Abu Ghraib prison

Self-Discrepancy Theory 

The idea that people become distressed when their sense of their actual self differs from their ideal self...