4 primary Paradigms according to Festinger's experiments

4 primary Paradigms according to Festinger's experiments

 

Festinger's experiments suggest that most research on cognitive dissonance follows four primary paradigms.

 

One of these paradigms is the belief/discrepancy paradigm, which refers to the state people experience when confronted with information that contradicts their beliefs. When individuals facing cognitive dissonance don't believe it can be resolved by changing their beliefs, they often seek validation from like-minded individuals and attempt to persuade others. Festinger's initial insights into cognitive dissonance emerged in his 1956 book. In this work, he explains the transformation of followers after a failed prophecy about a UFO landing. The followers believed they were the chosen survivors who would be saved from Earth's destruction at a specific time and place. However, when the prophecy failed, they experienced severe cognitive dissonance. To cope, they chose to deny the contradictory reality. They began to believe that aliens offered Earth a second chance and that the aliens had instructed them to spread this message. Despite the failed prophecy, this religious group intensified their efforts to convert others.

 

Induced compliance

In the induced compliance paradigm, Leon Festinger conducted an experiment in 1959 where he asked students to perform a boring task. This task was designed to elicit a strong and negative attitude from the students. Prior to the experiment, Festinger instructed some students to perceive the task positively after performing it, while he instructed others to convince other experimenters that the task was very interesting. The group instructed to perceive the task positively received $20, whereas the group instructed to persuade others received $1. There was no additional reward for the group that received no instructions.

 

The research findings showed that the group receiving $1 evaluated the task much more positively than the group receiving $20. The $1 group also reported experiencing cognitive dissonance, feeling more strongly that the task was boring while trying to persuade others that it was interesting. This was because only the $1 group was required to adopt this attitude. In contrast, the $20 group justified their behavior externally—they attributed their positive attitude to the external justification of receiving $20 rather than genuinely believing the task was interesting. As a result, they experienced relatively less cognitive dissonance compared to the $1 group.

 

Free choice

This paradigm emerged from an experiment conducted by Jack Brehm. He had his students evaluate household appliances and choose one of two appliances to take home. Later, he had them evaluate the appliances again. Participants rated the appliance they chose more positively and the one they did not choose more negatively. This can be explained from the perspective of cognitive dissonance, where the advantages of the chosen option are not compatible with those of the unchosen option, causing discomfort. In other words, the decision "I chose X" conflicts with the cognition "Y also has its merits."

 

Forbidden behavior paradigm

There is another experiment in induced compliance paradigm. Conducted in 1963 by Aronson and Carlsmith, it used toys to explore children's justification. In this experiment, children were left in a room with various toys, including ones they desired. Experimenters warned half of the children that playing with a specific toy would result in severe punishment, while the other half were told they would receive mild punishment. Consequently, all children hesitated to play with the toys. Later, they were allowed to play freely with all the toys. Interestingly, the group told about mild punishment played less with the toys. In this experiment, children who faced mild threats resolved their cognitive dissonance not by attributing their reluctance to play with the toys to fear of punishment but by deciding that the toys were not valuable for playing from the beginning. In 2012, a similar experiment was conducted, but classical music was played to the children. In contrast to the previous results, children who listened to the music played with the toys without any reluctance. This suggests that music reduces cognitive dissonance, a finding that could be significant for future research.

 

 

Effort justification

Dissonance can arise when individuals engage in actions they do not voluntarily desire in order to achieve their goals. This can be reduced when the urgency of the goal is exaggerated. In an experiment by Elliot Aronson and Judson Mills, participants were divided into two groups and instructed to join a particular organization. One group faced stringent membership conditions and mundane activities, while the other group faced easier conditions. Interestingly, the group that underwent the more stringent conditions found the group and activities more interesting. This illustrates that individuals tend to evaluate positively the outcomes they achieve through significant effort compared to the outcomes achieved through easier initial processes.