Self-Justification
Self-Justification
 People are motivated to justify their own actions, beliefs, and
feelings


When they do something, they will try, if at all possible, to convince
themselves and others that it was a logical, reasonable thing to do
Epinephrine injection study (Schachter & Singer, 1962): when people are
given a stimulant that they are told is just a vitamin, they will justify
their arousal by claiming that it is due to the social context (e.g., that
they are furious with the others at their table)
 Self-justification = the tendency to justify one’s actions in
order to maintain one’s self-esteem
 The need to justify our actions and decisions comes from an
unpleasant feeling called cognitive dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance
 Cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs
whenever an individual simultaneously holds 2
cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that
are psychologically inconsistent (Festinger, 1957)

For example, if you love to drive your car but read research
supporting the link between carbon dioxide in the atmosphere
and global warming, you may experience discomfort (this is
cognitive dissonance) – either you have to give up driving or
discount your belief in global warming in order to reduce that
discomfort
 The occurrence of cognitive dissonance is unpleasant
and causes discomfort
Cognitive Dissonance Example
“I smoke
cigarettes”
“Cigarette
smoking
produces
cancer”
Cognitive Dissonance
 Because the occurrence of cognitive dissonance is
unpleasant, people are motivated to reduce it
 We reduce dissonance by:





Changing our attitude
Changing our perception of the behavior
Adding cognitions to support a belief
Minimizing the importance of the conflict
Reducing perceived choice
Cognitive Dissonance
 So in the smoking example, a smoker could:
 Change their attitude: I should quit smoking; it’s bad!
 Change the perception of the behavior: I don’t actually smoke
that much
 Add cognitions to support a belief: the research that says
smoking causes cancer is flawed!
 Minimize the importance of the conflict: it’s not really so
important whether or not I smoke; everyone dies some day
 Reduce perceived choice: it’s impossible to quit, so I might as
well smoke
Cognitive Dissonance
 Example 2: “I need to be on a diet, yet I’ve just scarfed down a
chocolate mousse.” How would you reduce dissonance aroused by this
discrepancy between your attitude and your behavior?
Techniques
Examples
Change your attitude.
“I don’t really need to be on a diet.”
Change your perception of the
behavior.
“I hardly ate any chocolate mousse.”
Add consonant cognitions.
“Chocolate mousse is very
nutritious.”
Minimize the importance of the
conflict.
“I don’t care if I’m overweight—life is
short!”
Reduce perceived choice.
“I had no choice; the mousse was
prepared for this special occasion.”
(Brehm et al., 2002)
Cognitive Dissonance
 The theory of cognitive dissonance does not picture people as rational
beings; rather, it pictures them as rationalizing beings


According to the underlying assumptions of the theory, we are motivated not
so much to be right as to believe we are right (and wise, decent, and good)
We have trouble tolerating the thoughts that we are bad, inconsistent, or
illogical, so we try to reduce the evidence that we might be these things
 The deeper a person’s commitment to an attitude, the greater his or her
tendency to reject evidence that would cause dissonance; individuals
will distort the objective world to reduce their dissonance


Dartmouth versus Princeton football game (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954): this
was known as one of the most aggressive games of all times. A researcher
asked students at Dartmouth and Princeton to watch tapes of the game
objectively and take notes of each infraction of the rules. Princeton students
saw twice as many violations by Dartmouth players as the Dartmouth
students saw!
People don’t passively take in information; how we see things depends on
our preexisting beliefs and attitudes
Dissonance Reduction and Rational Behavior
 Dissonance-reducing behavior is irrational: it is often maladaptive
because it can prevent people from learning important facts or from
finding real solutions to their problems

For example, when people discount evidence that carbon dioxide causes global warming,
they are less likely to reduce their carbon footprint and more likely to speed up global
warming
 However, this does serve a purpose: reducing dissonance helps us
maintain a positive image of ourselves
 Research has demonstrated the irrationality of dissonance-reducing
behavior

When people who were deeply committed to a position on the issue of racial
segregation were presented with plausible and implausible arguments on
both sides, they tended to remember the plausible arguments agreeing with
their own position and the implausible arguments agreeing with the
opposing position (Jones & Kohler, 1959)
Dissonance Reduction and Rational Behavior
 It is important to note that the world is not divided
into rational people on one side and dissonance
reducers (irrational people) on the other side
 Some people are able to tolerate dissonance better
than others, but we are all capable of rational
behavior, and we are all capable of dissonancereducing (irrational) behavior, depending on the
circumstances
 See the next slide for a great explanation (by an
eminent psychologist) of how cognitive dissonance
can apply to everyday life
Dear Irrational (Does it Pay to Play Hard to Get?)
25th August 2009, 06:04 am
Dear Irrational,
I recently met a great guy – let’s call him George – and now I can’t stop thinking about him. Though we’ve
only been on a couple dinner dates, he’s officially won me over.
Now here’s my problem: Smitten as I am, I’m ready to hop into bed with George this very minute, but I’m not
sure that’s the best idea. After all, there must be some reason that all those books and magazines (not to
mention my mother) champion the make-him-wait rule. But does it really work? I’ve never followed it in the
past, but then, I can’t say I have the best dating track record either.
What do you think? Should I play hard to get, or no? Help!
Sincerely,
Unsure
——
Dear Unsure,
Your mother is right: making the guy sweat a little is in your best interest if you want to maximize the
chances of a long-term relationship. The reason lies in cognitive dissonance, which refers to what we do
when our beliefs and actions misalign: Can’t change the cold, hard facts? Then change your beliefs!
The classic experiment here comes from psychologists Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith, who had
participants perform a boring task and then paid them either $20 or $1 to convince someone else that the
task had been great fun. Everyone then rated the task, with the result that the $1 participants rated the task
more positively than did the $20 crew. While the $20 group could explain away the dissonance between their
action (“I told someone the task was riveting”) and their belief (“It actually bored me to tears”) via money (“I
was paid to promote the task”), the $1 individuals could not because they could not justify misleading others
for such a small amount of money, so they changed their initial belief (“I must really like the task to have
promoted it”), and they ended up rating the task more positively.
To give you an example that is closer to our social life, look at fraternities: loyalty to frats increases with the
amount of hazing, since pledges tell themselves, “I did a lot of embarrassing stuff for my frat – it must really
matter to me.”
So, going back to your dilemma, Unsure, cognitive dissonance suggests that if you really want a guy, you
have to create a dissonance for him so that he will say, “Wow, if I put in all this effort for the woman, I must
love her.”
This means that you have to make George pursue you. Instead of splitting the check, you let him pick up the
entire tab. Instead of calling him up and suggesting dates, you leave the calling and planning up to him. In
other words, make him work, and he will rationalize it by deciding he loves you.
Good luck.
Irrationally yours,
Dan Arielly
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
 Following a decision—especially a difficult one, or
one that involves a significant amount of time,
effort, or money—people almost always experience
dissonance

When deciding whether to buy an SUV or a compact car,
a buyer will think of good reasons to choose each type of
car, and also there will be some cons to each choice.
Thus, they will experience cognitive dissonance.
 This occurs because the chosen alternative is
seldom entirely positive, and the rejected
alternatives are seldom entirely negative
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
I chose to buy
this car
I know the
car I chose
has
deficiencies
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
I rejected
other cars
I know the
cars I rejected
have positive
attributes
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
 To reduce dissonance, people cognitively justify their
choices by:



Seeking out exclusively positive information about the car we
chose (e.g., read ads for the model we chose)
Avoiding negative information about our choice (e.g., steer
clear of ads for other makes of cars)
Seeking out exclusively negative information about the car we
did not choose
 After making decisions, people try to gain
reassurance that their decisions were wise by seeking
information that is certain to be reassuring (Ehrlich
et al., 1957)
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
 Brehm’s (1956) study illustrates our tendency to experience
dissonance as a consequence of decision-making and to
reduce dissonance by cognitively justifying it




Women were shown various appliances (e.g., toaster, coffee maker)
and were asked to rate each in terms of attractiveness
Each woman was then told she could have one of the appliances as a
gift and was given a choice between two of the products she had
rated as equally attractive
After she was given her chosen product, she was asked to rate the
products again
Results: after receiving the product of her choice, each woman rated
the attractiveness of that product somewhat higher and decreased
the rating of the appliance she had initially rated as equally attractive
but had rejected
Dissonance as a Consequence of Making a Decision
 Similar processes can affect our
romantic relationships and our
willingness to consider becoming
involved with alternative partners
 In short, once a firm commitment has been made,
people tend to focus on the positive aspects of their
choices and downplay the positive aspects of the
unchosen alternatives
Foot-In-The-Door Technique
 Foot-in-the-door technique = the process of using small favors to
encourage people to accede to larger requests
 This technique is effective because having done the smaller favor sets
up pressure toward agreeing to do the larger favor; in effect, it provides
justification in advance for complying with the large request
 A refusal of the larger favor would be inconsistent with the attitudes
that led you to grant the smaller favor
 For example, researchers tried to convince homeowners to put up a
huge, ugly sign in their yard that said, “Drive Carefully” – only 17%
agreed to do so

With a different group of homeowners, they first asked them to
sign a petition favoring safe driving, then asked them to put up
the same safe driving sign – 55% of this group allowed the sign
to be posted!
The Importance of Irrevocability
 The irrevocability of a decision always increases
dissonance and the motivation to reduce it



Once a decision is final, people begin to try to make themselves
feel good about the choice they made
Thus, people often become more certain that they have made a
wise decision after there is nothing they can do about it
When people can change their decision, they are less certain it
is the correct choice!
 Evidence for the importance of irrevocability
 Participants who had already placed their racetrack bets were
more confident that their horse would win than those
participants who were about to place their bets (Knox &
Inkster, 1968)
The Importance of Irrevocability
 Although the irrevocability of a decision always
increases dissonance and the motivation to reduce it,
there are certain circumstances in which
irrevocability is unnecessary for this to occur

A salesperson can convince a customer to agree to purchase a
car for a higher price than the customer had intended to pay by
first convincing the customer to agree to a very low cost, then
claiming it was an error, and then raising the price. This is
called lowballing (Cialdini et al., 1978)
Lowballing
 Why does lowballing work?
 The customer already psychologically committed to buying the
car by writing the down payment check, thus creating the
illusion of irrevocability
 The commitment triggers the anticipation of a pleasurable
experience – the excitement of driving a new car (to have this
thwarted would have produced dissonance and
disappointment)
 Although the price is significantly higher than the customer
thought it would be, it is only slightly higher than the price
somewhere else

So the customer thinks, “What the hell, I’m already here and filled
out these forms, so why wait?”
The Importance of Irrevocability
 Dissonance can also impact the decision to behave morally
or immorally



Making difficult decisions always leads to dissonance (cheating
vs. not cheating)
Once tempted, those who submit to an “immoral” temptation
are more likely to adopt a more lenient attitude about it, while
those who resist it are more likely to strongly oppose it
Mills (1958) measured a group of 6th graders’ attitudes
towards cheating, then had them take a competitive exam with
prizes for the winners, but it was easy to cheat and almost
impossible to win without cheating. The next day, kids were
asked again to rate how they feel about cheating – those who
cheated became more lenient about cheating, and those who
didn’t had an even harsher view of cheating than they had
before.
The Importance of Irrevocability
 The same mechanism that enables a person to cling to an
attitude can induce that individual to change an attitude

It depends on which course of action will serve most to
reduce dissonance under the circumstances

Two people who act in different ways could have started
out with almost identical ambivalent attitudes, but once
they make their decision, their attitudes diverge sharply
as a consequence
Self-Justification: A Quote
“Man is the only animal that learns by being
hypocritical. He pretends to be polite and
then eventually, he becomes polite.”
- Jean Kerr
Dissonant Situations
 We sometimes find ourselves saying or doing things
we don’t completely believe; however, this does not
always lead to attitude change

For example, if you walk into a friend’s apartment, and they
show off their new furniture, which you think is very ugly, you
might compliment it anyway. This will not change your
attitude because you have a strong reason for saying
something you don’t believe – you know you are just doing it
to avoid hurting your friend’s feelings. Thus, providing a false
compliment does not cause you to change your beliefs because
you have an external justification.
External Justification
 External justification = a person’s reason or
explanation for his or her dissonant behavior that
resides not in the individual but in the situation

If you have external justification, you don’t have to soften or
change your beliefs as a result of cognitive dissonance because
you have another reason to justify your thoughts and behaviors
 Some examples of external justification:
 The idea that it’s harmless to tell a lie to avoid hurting a
person’s feelings (such as in the example on the last slide)
 Drunkenness as an excuse for one’s actions
 You get a reward for behaving in a certain way
The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
 When people state a belief that they don’t really
agree with:


First, they try to justify it externally by looking for situational
reasons why they would state something they don’t really
believe
If this doesn’t work, they will try to use internal justification
 Internal justification = the reduction of dissonance
by changing something about oneself (e.g., one’s
attitude or behavior)

This can be done by shifting your attitudes to make them more
consistent with something you said or did
The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
 We begin to believe our own lies—but only if we can’t find
abundant external justification for making the statements
that run counter to our original attitudes
 Typically, the greater the reward offered for compliance,
the more likely a person is to comply.

This is because there is a high level of external justification;
therefore, we don’t need to change our beliefs!
 However, when it comes to producing a lasting change in
attitude, the greater the reward, the less likely any attitude
change will occur

This is because when we have less external justification (the
reward), we will be more likely to shift to internal justification
and change our attitudes
The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
 Very powerful form of attitude change: if we change our attitudes
because we have made a public statement for minimal external
justification, our attitude change will be relatively permanent
 We are not changing our attitudes because of a reward (compliance)
or because of the influence of an attractive person (identification)
 We are changing our attitudes because we have succeeded in
convincing ourselves that our previous attitudes were incorrect
 For example, let’s say you are very against people owning guns, and I
ask you to make a speech in favor of private gun ownership. You will
likely agree to do it if I offer you a lot of money, but in this case, after
the speech, your views on gun ownership are less likely to change.
But if I give you only a very small reward for making the speech, you
will likely seek additional justification for delivering the speech by
convincing yourself that the things you said were actually true. In
this case, you may actually change your attitude rather than merely
comply with my request.
The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
 Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
 Asked college students to perform a boring and repetitive
series of tasks for one hour
 The experimenter then induced them to lie about the task (tell
the next participant the task is interesting and enjoyable)
 Some students were offered $20 for telling a lie; others were
offered $1
 After the experiment was over, students were asked how much
they enjoyed the tasks they had performed earlier
 Results:
$20 condition rated the activity as dull (because it was dull)
 $1 condition rated the task as enjoyable! This is an example of
inadequate justification at work – they resorted to internal
justification when they did not earn much money for the lie

The Psychology of Inadequate Justification
 Zimbardo et al. (1965)
 Army reservists were asked to try fried grasshoppers
 This request was made either by a warm, friendly officer or by
a cold, unfriendly officer
 Reservists’ attitudes toward eating grasshoppers were
measured before and after they ate the grasshoppers
 Results:
Reservists who ate grasshoppers at the request of the mean officer
increased their liking for the grasshoppers far more than those
who ate the grasshoppers at the request of the nice officer
 This is another case of people finding internal justification when
their behavior could not be justified externally

A Reformulation of Dissonance Theory
 Aronson(1968) reformulated Festinger’s dissonance theory in a way
that focuses more attention on the way people conceive of themselves
 This reformulation suggests that dissonance is most powerful in
situations in which the self-concept is threatened
 For example, if my self-concept is that I have integrity, then if I tell
people something I don’t believe, this will result in cognitive
dissonance
 So, in the study where students were induced to lie that a boring task
was interesting, they felt dissonance because their self-concept was
that they are people who don’t lie
 This reformulation is based on the assumption that most individuals
like to think of themselves as decent people who wouldn’t ordinarily
mislead someone
A Reformulation of Dissonance Theory
 Dissonance effects are greatest when (1) people feel
personally responsible for their actions, and (2) their
actions have serious consequences
 That is, the greater the consequence and the greater our
responsibility for it, the greater the dissonance; the greater
the dissonance, the greater our attitude change
 Aronson’s reformulation stresses that dissonance is
aroused when the self-concept is challenged
Inadequate Rewards & Education
 Inadequate Rewards as Applied to Education
 Reminder: Performance of a dull task for little pay is rated as more
enjoyable than if payment is large
 If you give a kid a lot of external justification for reciting the
multiplication tables, they will be less likely to recite them in his or
her free time. But, if you provide him or her with little reward, he
or she will add his or her own justification for performing the drill
and will be more likely to practice on his or her own
 Lepper study: some children were told to work on puzzles but
would get to do a more fun activity later. The other children
weren’t promised anything in return. Those who weren’t promised
a reward later spent their free time playing with the puzzles, but
those who had been rewarded did not play with puzzles in their
free time when they had another choice

By offering children a reward for playing, the experimenters succeeded
in turning play into work!
Inadequate Rewards & Education
 Inadequate Rewards as Applied to Education
 What is the impact of praise as a reward?
 Henderlong and Lepper- reviewed a host of studies and found that
praise can be beneficial, but only if it is done in moderation and in
a way that makes children feel competent
 Causing a person to focus on the extrinsic reasons for
performing well will reduce the attractiveness of the task itself
 Additionally, Dweck’s work shows that praise is most effective if it
is focused on efforts rather than talent or ability.
 If you praise children for being smart, then when they aren’t
doing well, they start to believe they’re not as smart as the
person giving the praise had thought.
Insufficient Punishment

The use of threats of harsh punishment as a means of getting
someone to refrain from doing something he or she enjoys is
ineffective without constant harassment and vigilance because he or
she will refrain only as long as you’re watching.
So, harsh punishment won’t teach kids not to cheat in school – it will just
teach them to avoid getting caught
 Without severe external justification for restraint, the person will seek
internal justification
 Allowing people the opportunity to construct their own internal
justification can be a large step toward helping them develop a permanent
set of values.
Aronson and Carlsmith: told 5 year old children they could not play with a
toy they really liked. Half of the kids were told if they played with it, there
would be a mild punishment; others were threatened with a severe
punishment. The kids who had received a mild threat rated the toy as less
attractive than those who received a severe threat – they had had to find
internal justification in order to avoid playing with the toy!


The Justification of Effort
 According to dissonance theory, if a person works hard to attain
a goal, that goal will be more attractive to the individual than it
will be to someone who achieves the same goal with little or no
effort
 For example, a newly initiated frat member may regard his
messy roommate as casual rather than sloppy because he had
had to work so hard to get into the frat that it would cause
cognitive dissonance to believe the frat is unpleasant
 Aronson and Mills (1959) study: if women had to go through
an effortful screening test to join a group to discuss sex, they
would rate the boring group as more interesting than if they
did not have the tough screening test
 This process is called justification of effort: if a person goes
through a difficult experience to attain a goal or object, the
goal or object becomes more attractive
The Justification of Cruelty
 As we have discussed, our need to convince ourselves that
we are decent, reasonable people can cause us to change
our attitudes on issues important to us
 When performing an act of cruelty, your cognition, “I am a
decent, fair, and reasonable person,” is dissonant with your
cognition, “I have hurt another person”


In this situation, the most effective way to reduce dissonance would
be to maximize the culpability of the victim (e.g., you begin to think
he or she deserved it)
Davis and Jones (1960) study: students watched another student be
interviewed, then were instructed to tell the interviewed student he
or she was shallow, untrustworthy, and dull. Students who had to
say this convinced themselves that they didn’t like the victim of their
cruelty and found him or her less attractive than they did before
saying the cruel statements.
The Justification of Cruelty
 Limitations to this phenomenon:
 People with low self-esteem have less need to derogate
their victims


If I think I’m a terrible person, then causing others to suffer
doesn’t cause dissonance, so I don’t need to convince myself they
deserved my cruelty
If the victim is able and willing to retaliate in the future,
then the harm-doer feels that equity will be restored and,
thus, has no need to justify the action by derogating the
victim
 These results suggest that during a war, soldiers
might have a greater need to derogate civilian
victims (because they can’t retaliate)
The Justification of Cruelty
 This is a cartoon from a
Nazi newspaper that
suggests that Jews were
sucking the economic life
out of Gentiles as well as
comparing Jews to
inhuman creatures
 This type of propaganda
reduced the dissonance
associated with killing
innocent people by
seeing them as animals
who were cruel
The Psychology of Inevitability
 When a situation arises that is both
negative and inevitable, people attempt
to make the best of things by cognitively
minimizing the unpleasantness of the
situation

Brehm (1959): got children to eat a vegetable
they had disliked. After they ate the vegetable,
half of the kids were told they would have to eat
much more in the future. Those children
succeeded in convincing themselves that the
vegetable was not so bad to reduce the
dissonance associated with having to eat a lot of
a vegetable they didn’t like.
The Psychology of Inevitability
 Deemphasizing the negative in the face of the inevitable can
be adaptive, but it can also be disastrous


Lehman and Taylor (1987)—there was a high probability of a
major earthquake in LA in the 1980s, so they interviewed 120
students at UCLA and found that only 5% had taken any safety
precautions and knew what to do in the event of an
earthquake. Only 1/3 knew the best action in an earthquake is
to crawl under a heavy piece of furniture or stand in a
doorway. Not one student had taken the preparation measures
recommended by experts.
Why did they do this? Because they rationalized: if I’m sure
there’s going to be an earthquake, how can I justify staying
here? By denying that there’s an earthquake coming (i.e.,
deemphasizing the negative)!
Dissonance Reduction is Unconscious
 The process of reducing dissonance is
largely unconscious
 Our attempts at dissonance reduction
would not be very convincing otherwise
For example, if your boyfriend dumps
you, you will gradually convince yourself that he
is a big jerk and you deserve better. But this
would not be very effective if it was a conscious
process!
Importance of Self-Esteem
 As we have discussed, the deepest form of
commitment takes place when a person’s self-esteem
is at stake
 People with low-self esteem will not find it difficult
to commit immoral acts because this is not dissonant
with their self-concept
 People with high-self esteem are more likely to resist
the temptation to commit immoral acts because this
would produce dissonance
Importance of Self-Esteem
 Aronson and Mettee (1968):





Gave some students positive feedback about their personality (that
they were deep, mature, and interesting)
Gave other students negative feedback (that they were immature,
uninteresting, and shallow)
Didn’t give any feedback to control students.
Then the students had to play a card game where they could keep
their winnings and where cheating was possible and highly increased
the chance of winning.
Students who had received positive feedback about themselves
cheated far less than students who had received negative feedback
about themselves. Those who received no information fell in
between the other two groups.
Physiological & Motivational Effects of Dissonance
 How far can the effects of dissonance extend?
 Researchers have shown that it can go beyond attitudes;
it can modify the way we experience basic physiological
drives.
 For example, volunteers who commit to being deprived
of food and water or receiving electric shocks will
convince themselves that the hunger pains aren’t so
intense, the thirst isn’t so bad, or the pain isn’t so great
to reduce the dissonance that they volunteered for this
experience.
 Our basic physiological drives all have a
psychological component to them!
Dissonance Reduction & Culture
 Is the experience of cognitive dissonance universal?
 Although most of the research has been conducted in
North America, the effects have been shown to exist
in every part of the world where research has been
done


However, the specific effects do not always take precisely the
same form in all cultures
In less individualistic societies, dissonance-reducing behavior
may take a more communal form; for example, dissonance can
arise when something happens to a friend, not just to yourself!
The end