Festinger's experiment

In the framework of the theory of cognitive dissonance , developed in 1957, Leon Festinger argues that a person by nature seeks to coordinate his internal attitudes and public actions. In the case when a contradiction arises between the attitudes and actions of the individual , he tries to rationalize his behavior. Moreover, in the event of cognitive dissonance , the individual will try by all means to avoid situations that entail his increase. However, if an individual’s actions diverge from his internal attitudes because of external pressure (for example, the threat of using force or the promise of reward), then the degree of dissonance decreases. One way to reduce dissonance is to change one’s own opinion and attitudes in such a way that they are consistent with the public actions of the individual. ^[one]

In support of his theory, Festinger conducts a series of psychological experiments aimed at proving the desire of individuals to avoid a situation of cognitive dissonance, as well as to observe how individuals respond to the condition.

Description

Students at Stanford University took part in the classic experiment of Festinger and Carlsmith. The subjects were explained that the purpose of the experiment was to study the level of productivity in order to subsequently increase it, based on the results. The experiment was attended by 71 people.

During the experiment, they were offered boring and meaningless tasks. For the first half hour, the subjects shifted 12 coils from the tray onto the table using only one hand, for the next half hour they turned 48 levers screwed into the board clockwise, also using only one hand. During the experiment, the experimenter was present in the laboratory with a stopwatch and a notebook in which he made notes.

After the subject completed the task, the experimenter voiced the fictitious goal of the experiment - the study of the impact of expectations on the performance of the work. Then the participant was informed that he was in a group whose members were not provided with information about the experiment in advance. The participant was offered to work for a while as an assistant to the experimenter (who is temporarily absent) and to characterize the next test subjects the work they have to perform as interesting and pleasant, thereby deceiving them. He was given a sheet marked "For Group B". The task was complicated by the fact that the participant in the experiment had to convince subsequent subjects that the tasks were fascinating and interesting. All participants in the experiment were divided into three groups: one group was offered $ 1 per fraud, the other $ 20, the third group was a control and did not participate in the fraud. Some participants in the experiment refused the proposed role even for a fee, but most accepted the proposal. ^[2]

Results

At the end of the experiment, all three groups of subjects were interviewed by an employee of the faculty of psychology, who suggested that participants evaluate the experiment by 4 criteria:

• How exciting were the assignments? ( Were the tasks interesting and enjoyable? )
• What did the subject learn ? ( Did the experiment give the subject an opportunity to learn about their own abilities? )
• How important was this experiment? ( Would the subject say that the experiment as he had experienced it was actually likely to measure anything important? )
• Would the subject have any desire to participate in another similar experiment? )

However, not all participants in the experiment strictly followed the prescribed rules. So, 5 people who were offered a reward (three were offered $ 1, and two - $ 20) found the idea of ​​getting a fee for cheating very suspicious, this fact made them doubt the true purpose of the experiment. Two participants who received $ 1 told subsequent subjects that the tasks were boring, but they were paid to lie. Three subjects refused to participate in the deception, despite the promised reward. Another participant who was paid $ 1 gave a positive description of the tasks, but then asked for the next participant's phone number to tell him everything after the experiment. In the end, 60 subjects remained, based on the answers of which the results of the experiment were deduced.

The researchers were most interested in the answers to the first question, since there were no special discrepancies in the answers to the other three questions. The scale of answers to the first question assumed a range from −5 to 5, where “-5” meant “boring, uninteresting”, “0” - “neutral” and “+5” - “interesting, fascinating”. The majority of participants in the control group found the tasks boring and uninteresting, which was quite expected. Participants who were paid $ 20 rated the assignments neutral. Subjects who received $ 1 for fraud, noted that the work performed was fascinating and exciting. According to Festinger and Carlsmith, such an assessment was quite predictable and justified the theory of cognitive dissonance. During the experiment, participants in the one-dollar and twenty-dollar groups developed a dissonance, which resulted in a discrepancy between the monotony of tasks and ostentatious enthusiasm. However, if the subjects of the last group could justify the situation by the fact that they at least paid a decent amount for cheating, and thereby try to reduce the state of psychological discomfort , then the participants of the one-dollar group had to change their perception of the situation and their thoughts on this subject to avoid occurrence dissonance. ^[2]

Conclusions

The results of the experiment clearly confirmed the provisions of the theory of cognitive dissonance by Leon Festinger. Festinger believed that the state of dissonance would be most pronounced precisely when the divergence of attitudes would be of the greatest importance to the subject. In this case, it was assumed that most people are convinced of their natural honesty, so the discrepancy will be especially pronounced. Indeed, members of the one-dollar group, faced with a mismatch of activity and its description, were forced to convince themselves of the fascination of the tasks in order to avoid psychological discomfort and justify the lies that they had to resort to. There was a change in existing installations and the reduction of the state of dissonance.

American psychologist Arthur Cohen conducted a similar experiment on Yale students immediately after the student riot, which was brutally crushed by New Haven police. Students were invited to write an essay in which they would justify the actions of the police, as the experimenters needed convincing arguments in favor of the police. For the written essay, students were offered a reward. So, one group was paid 50 cents, the other - 1 dollar, the third - 5 dollars and the last was offered 10 dollars for the work done. After writing an essay, the experimenter suggested that the subjects fill out a questionnaire, which determined the attitude of students to the police. The control group did not write an essay; its attitude was found out from the responses to the questionnaire. The results of the experiment showed that the greater the reward, the less the dissonance. So, those students who wrote essays for 50 cents ultimately changed their attitude to a more favorable one than those who wrote for a dollar. And those who wrote essays for the dollar showed a more friendly attitude than those who received $ 5. The attitude towards the police did not differ much between the five- and ten-dollar groups. In the control group, it was sharply negative. ^[3]

The main critics of the Festinger experiment were Natalia Chapanis and Alfons Chapanis . They doubted that the conditions of this experiment contributed to the creation of dissonance as such. Participants in the control group rated the task as neutral or boring, while Festinger himself suggested that the monotony and uniformity of the tasks would lead to an experience of dissonance. In this case, according to Natalia and Alfons Chapanis, either the proposed tasks were not very tiring and monotonous to affect the condition of the subjects, or the false instructions given before the test about the purpose of the experiment seemed so interesting to the participants that the repetitive and boring nature of the tasks did not cause psychological the discomfort. Moreover, the payment for the experiment was also criticized. The subjects were students, $ 20 was a lot of money for them even for a full day of work, so when they were offered such a high fee for a half-hour meaningless work, it was not surprising that many felt the catch and even refused to participate. Thus, Natalia and Alfons Chapanis concluded that the participants could deceive or respond evasively, evaluating the experiment, because they lacked confidence in the goals of the experiment. ^[four]

The ideas and experiments of Leon Festinger were subsequently reflected in the theory of behavioral economics . Proponents of this trend argue that the adoption of economic decisions is influenced by psychological factors, including cognitive ones . Thus, economic agents will do their utmost to justify the decisions made if they are irrational and even destructive, thereby trying to reduce the feeling of dissonance that has arisen. Emotional and cognitive factors in particular will manifest themselves in the activities of investors and bankers.

• Festinger L. Introduction to the theory of dissonance. // Festinger L. Theory of cognitive dissonance. [1] - St. Petersburg: Juventa, 1999. - S. 15-52.
• Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, JM (1959). "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211
• Cohen, AR, Brehm, JW and Fleming, WH Attitude change and justification for compliance. J. abnorm. soc. Psychol., 1958, 56, 276-278.
• Chapanis, Natalia P. and Chapanis, A. Cognitive dissonance: five years later. Psychol. Bull., 1964
• SR Maddi. Personality theories: a comparative analysis. Homewood, Ill: Dorsey Press, 1968 St. Petersburg: Rech Publishing House, 2002. - P. 24-26
• Aronson E. Public animal. Introduction to social psychology. / ed. 7 .; per. from English - M .: Aspect Press, 1998 .-- 517 p.

• Introduction to the theory of dissonance (neopr.) . Date of treatment November 21, 2016.
• Cognitive consequences of forced compliance (unopened) (inaccessible link) . Date of treatment November 21, 2016. Archived July 14, 2015.
• Electronic Jewish Encyclopedia (Neopr.) . Date of treatment November 21, 2016.
• Cognitive dissonance. Part 1 (neopr.) . Date of treatment November 21, 2016.