Part 6: Cognitive Dissonance

Presentation Transcript

Part 6: Cognitive Dissonance

Irrationality in basic leadership: sunk expenses

The tennis elbow issue Imagine you appreciate playing tennis. One day, on the court you create tennis elbow. It is to a great degree excruciating to play. Your specialist reveals to you that the torment will proceed for about a year. Evaluate the quantity of times you will play tennis in the following 6 months. Envision you have paid $400 (nonrefundable) to join a social club for 6 months. Amid the principal week of your enrollment, you create tennis elbow. It is to a great degree difficult to play. Your specialist discloses to you that the agony will proceed for about a year. Assess the quantity of times you will play tennis in the following 6 months.

Previous outcomes from an expansive scale think about (N = 287) Difference critical at p < .001 5.9 4.2 Paid $400 fee no expense

Other potential cases of sunk costs Waiting for the lift, trains, and so on Tickets and snow squalls Wars, other equipped clashes? (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq) These last two cases—not as obvious

Traditional (regulating) models of basic leadership: Choices ought to be driven by future outcomes, not past uses All past illustrations, which are "sunk cost" issues, seem to disregard that guideline. Meaning of "sunk cost" issues: decisions have all the earmarks of being driven by past, irretrievable uses Traditional models of human inspiration and basic leadership can't without much of a stretch clarify such choices.

You and a buddy plan to go skiing at a resort. You each have paid 100 dollars for lift tickets and rental. When you arrive, the conditions are shocking—it's chilly, frosty, and even the best lifts are not working a result of the wind. What's more, you both get a handle on lousy physically and of sorts mentally. Your partner swings to you and says, "It's too terrible that the cash is not refundable, we'd have a greatly improved time back home, unwinding before the fire. In any case, I can't stand to waste 100 dollars." You concur. In any case, you likewise both concur that it's impossible that you will have a superior time battling with the terrible conditions on the slants, contrasted with being inside. What do you do? Stay and ski, or go home?

Paid 100 dollars for tickets and hardware (diminish in net resources by $100) Give up and go home Decision? Stay and ski Staying at home feels aversive, due to the feeling that you have "squandered" the 100 dollars. In any case, the past consumption is unimportant to your choice, since it is a steady in both cases. Better day at home (short 100 dollars) Lousy day skiing (less 100 dollars)

Paid 50 pennies for tickets and hardware (diminish in net resources by 50 pennies) Give up and go home Decision? Stay and ski Lousy day skiing (short 50 pennies) Better day at home (less 50 pennies)

Paid 100 dollars for extremely costly supper (and server brings you three circumstances as much sustenance as you would regularly eat) (diminish in net resources by $100) Eat the sum you more often than not do Decision? Eat the whole bit Decrease eating joy, and now you feel fat ( short 100 dollars) Increased eating delight (and no compelling reason to stop eating so much junk food) (less 100 dollars)

Cognitive Dissonance: Theoretical foundation

Models of human inspiration: Classical molding Instrumental molding Homeostasis models

Psychological Imbalance Metabolic Imbalance Aversive condition of excitement (appetite) Efforts to diminish excitement Regain consistency Homeostasis Aversive condition of excitement (discord)

Dissonance hypothesis can possibly clarify sunk costs (Red bolts speak to conduct that could conceivably trigger disharmony.) previous cognition thought about conduct Paid incredible arrangement of cash to ski Don't ski? Sat tight 2 minutes for lift Take stairs? Spent X billion in Iraq as of now Pull out troops?

Initiation rituals: Aronson & Mills (1959) Three screening conditions Control (e.g. seat, table, miserable, book ) Mild (e.g. prostitute, virgin ) Extreme (foul words- - sorry, I can't put these up! ) All members then tune in to test tape of dialog gathering Discussion is frightfully exhausting! (pre-tried) Dependent variable: communicated preferring for the exchange gathering and craving to join

Initiation (cost) High (- - ) None (0) Initial assessment of gathering (- ) Initial assessment of gathering (- ) + Don't join Don't Join STRONG discord

Alternate clarifications of Aronson & Mills (1959)? Gerard & Mathewson (1966 )

UCS (shock) UCR (torment) CS (amass)

Festinger & Carlsmith (1957) Control assemble Two extra conditions Participants paid $1.00 , or $20.00 to advise deceive approaching member DV: all members express OWN happiness regarding assignment

Dependent variable: preferring for undertaking $1.00 control $20

Subsequent conduct: "told other member that I loved errand" Initial state of mind: "I didn't appreciate assignment" Sufficient legitimization ($20) Insufficient support ($1) low disharmony higher discord Minimal demeanor change Attitude change

Practical utilizations of cacophony hypothesis: (e.g. The condom ponder: Aronson, Fried, & Stone, 1991) Participants make set out of contentions about safe-sex in private versus open Complete review showing past trouble in utilizing condoms (control: no poll) Greatest short and long haul condom utilize Contexts of contentions: Private public yes * study: no

Necessary conditions for cacophony to emerge: Behavior must be: be seen as unreservedly picked have predictable, pessimistic results saw by others Also: must accept that individuals consider themselves great chiefs.

Post-decisional cacophony Suppose you are having an extreme time picking between two choices. Decision X (x+, x+, x+, x-, x-, x-) Choice Y (y+, y+, y-, y-, y-) Suppose you pick x All positive components of y, and every negative component of x, can create cacophony Brehm (1956)

confirm that excitement is specifically interceding mentality change? Guide self report measures: Devine, 1998; Eliot & Devine, 1994 Physiological information—Croyle & Cooper (1983)- - GSR –galvanic skin reaction Misattribution considers… .

Misattribution worldview (e.g. Zanna & Cooper (1974) Pill desires stir none unwind counter-attitudinal exposition DV: demeanor change Degree of mentality change unwind none excite Expectations about pill

On the Larger Influence of Dissonance Theory Two center presumptions all through all of brain science: requirement for consistency People are cautious and exact screens of their own inner states Homeostasis demonstrate prevailing power waiting impact of Freud intra - individual procedures accentuated

Interesting marvels related with cacophony impacts The disturbing grasshopper examine (Zimbardo et al. 1965) Ss are made a request to eat a grasshopper by a companion or an adversary Which bunch revealed more noteworthy enjoying for this wonderful piece? The Ben Franklin impact Want to motivate somebody to like you? Have them help out for you! Despising our casualties since they are casualties

"On the Nature of Scientific Revolutions" (Thomas Kuhn) bedrock suspicions of a built up hypothesis or "world perspectives "tested Nicolai Copernicus Charles Darwin Sigmund Freud

Social brain research encounters its own particular outlook change: By mid 1970's some bedrock suppositions in social brain research are tested: Homeostasis show off base? Possibly person aren't roused by consistency all things considered. Perhaps we are slightly below average at knowing our own emotions. Development of a "data handling" see

Self recognition hypothesis (once more)

"Irregularity, [dissonance theorists] attempt to let us know, rouses conduct and state of mind change. In any case, I don't trust it. At any rate not in particular. My own doubt is that irregularity is our most persevering psychological ordinary. That would i say i is, suspect for the vast majority more often than not… irregularity just stays there." Bem (1970)

Dissonance hypothesis YES A  B YES Tension reducers Self-recognition hypothesis NO B  A NO Information processors People great at surveying own inside states through reflection? Suppositions about connection between states of mind (An) and conduct (B) Drive for consistency? Essential perspective of individuals as … .

Reinterpretation of exemplary reviews in disharmony worldview Small versus substantial motivators for composing counter-attitudinal articles Outside onlookers and self in comparative position, says Bem Festinger and Carlsmith (1957)

Resolution of Debate: Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper (1977) Both hypotheses are right, however apply under various "limit" conditions Dissonance hypothesis: Initial mentality is solid, and individual acts in ways unmistakably conflicting with it "hot" procedures intervene (strain decrease) Self-discernment Initial disposition is feeble, OR individual acts in ways not profoundly conflicting with state of mind "icy" procedures intercede (coherent surmising)

Fazio, Zanna, & Cooper, 1977

Essays written in these scopes trigger discord But self observation forms apply here Latitude of acknowledgment Latitude of dismissal Latitude of dismissal 0% educational cost climb 20% educational cost climb Initial demeanor

Fazio et al. 1977: Methodology Initial appraisal of disposition Assigned to compose exposition in scope of acknowledgment versus dismissal (all under high decision) Participants' assumptions about room: "tense" versus no desires DV: state of mind change in the wake of composing exposition

"Tense" Degree of demeanor change No desires Latitude of dismissal Latitude of acknowledgment SELF PERCEPT