Since the time Festinger published his theory of cognitive dissonance, hundreds of studies have been conducted on the topic. A review of these studies reveals three main paradigms, or models, that are commonly used to investigate predictions based on the theory: Free Choice, Forced/Induced Compliance, and Effort Justification.
The main difference between these models relate to the type of situation used to arouse cognitive dissonance. In the discussion that follows, a classic experiment from each paradigm is briefly described as an example.
Free Choice
Having to choose between two or more alternatives almost always creates dissonance. Why? Because life is complex. We hardly ever encounter situations that are purely black or white. There are usually advantages and disadvantages to each possible course of action. Choosing one over the other inevitably results in dissonance since we are forced to give up the advantages of the option we refused, while accepting the disadvantages of the one we chose. This type of situation is known as a multiple approach-avoidance conflict since we are faced with multiple options, each of which has aspects that appeal to us, as well as aspects that we wish to avoid. The more difficult the decision, the greater the dissonance it creates.
Consider this example: Let's say you have a choice between living on the ground floor versus the third floor of a small apartment building. If you choose to live on the third floor you would have a lovely view of the surrounding hillside but would have the hassle of climbing three flights of stairs. If you live on the ground floor, you would have easy access to your apartment but no view at all. In either case, you will experience dissonance because of the discrepancy between what you want and what you have.
Brehm's [1956] Study
Method: In this study, women were asked to rate common household products such as a toaster and a radio, on a scale from 1 [least desirable] to 8 [most desirable]. After rating each product, participants were told that they could take one of two products as a free gift. Some participants were given an easy choice: they had to choose between two items which they had given very different ratings, while the others were given a difficult choice: they had to choose between items they had rated very closely. After making their selection, participants were asked to rate the items again. Participants in the difficult condition were expected to experience more dissonance than those in the easy condition since they had to choose between options that were, by and large, equally attractive.
Results: As predicted, those in the easy [low dissonance] condition did not change their ratings much, but those in the difficult [high dissonance] condition significantly increased their rating of the selected item and reduced their rating of the rejected item. They exaggerated the difference between the two items in order to justify the choice they made and thereby reduce their dissonance. This tendency to overstate the positive aspects of the chosen alternative and minimize the attractiveness of the rejected alternative is termed "spreading apart the alternatives." It is often used to reduce the dissonance we experience after making a difficult decision.
Induced Compliance
Dissonance typically results when individuals are induced or forced to behave in ways that are inconsistent with their beliefs and attitudes. For example, if a class assignment requires that you debate against a position that you strongly believe in, you would likely feel uncomfortable. Similarly, if your job involves promoting and speaking glowingly about a product that you really dislike, it is fair to assume you would experience some amount of dissonance.
Festinger and Carlsmith's [1959] Study
Method: Participants in this study were asked to perform two mind-numbingly boring tasks. One task involved placing spools on and off a tray repeatedly, while the other involved turning pegs on a pegboard, one after the other. Afterward, participants were asked to tell a waiting participant [actually a confederate of the experiment] that the tasks were really fun and enjoyable. Some participants were offered $1 for doing this, while others were offered $20, which in the 1950's was a pretty tidy sum. Before leaving, all participants were asked to rate the tasks based on how fun and enjoyable they had been.
Results: You might expect that those who received more money rated the tasks as more enjoyable, but just the opposite happened! Why? All the participants would have experienced inconsistency between how they truly felt [The tasks were boring] and what they had been induced to say [The tasks were fun]. However, those in the $20 condition experienced much less dissonance because they were able to add a third cognition to resolve the inconsistency—"I was paid a lot of money to say the tasks were fun." For the other participants, $1 was not enough to justify lying. To resolve the inconsistency, they therefore modified one of their cognitions, convincing themselves that the tasks really were interesting, hence their higher ratings.
Effort Justification
Have you ever had the experience of investing a lot of time and energy into something, only to realize much later on that it wasn't worth all the effort? If so, you are likely familiar with the uncomfortable sense of dissonance that can result from such a situation.
Perhaps you worked really hard, spent a lot of money, and moved far away from home to get into a top-rated psychology program. Three months into the program, much to your dismay, you discover that you don't enjoy studying psychology at all! Given that it would be impossible to undo all that effort, you might settle for the next best thing—justify your effort by convincing yourself that it really was worth it: "Psychology wasn't such a bad choice after all...the knowledge I'm gaining now can be applied to so many other fields...it's really an excellent foundation on which to build any career"....whatever it takes to sleep at night...
Aronson and Mills' [1959] Study
Method: In this study, female students from the University of Minnesota were invited to join a sexual discussion group. However, they were told that they would first have to undergo a screening test. Some participants were assigned to a low embarrassment condition that involved reading aloud common words related to sex, such as 'petting,' 'love' and 'prostitute.' Others were assigned to a high embarrassment condition that involved reading aloud more obscene four-letter words as well as an explicit sexual passage. Afterwards, the participants were told they would be able to join the group the following week but could listen to the group's first discussion via headphones. The participants then listened to an extremely boring discussion about sex in lower animals that had been previously staged and recorded by the researchers. After listening to the recording, participants were asked to rate the group members and the discussion.
Results: Participants who underwent the "high embarrassment" test gave much more positive ratings than those who experienced the milder version of the test. For those in the "high embarrassment" condition, the knowledge that 1] "I just endured a very embarrassing test to join this group" was inconsistent with the knowledge that 2] "The group is extremely boring." Since it was impossible to change the fact that they had already done the test, the best way of reducing the dissonance was to develop a more favorable attitude toward the group. Those in the "low embarrassment" condition experienced much less dissonance because they did not have to exert as much effort or endure as much discomfort for the sake of joining the group. Therefore, they had very little need to alter their perceptions of the group.