Describe how self-justification affects science?? Apply these ideas to how you are going to conduct science in your dissertation or masters thesis. You can also describe how these i

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE

LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH1

Stanford University

WHAT happens to a person's private not conclusive. One of the major weaknesses of opinion if he is forced to do or say the data is that not all subjects in the experi- something contrary to that opin- ment made an overt statement contrary to

ion? Only recently has there been, any experi- their private opinion in order to obtain the mental work related to this question. Two stud- offered reward. What is more, as one might ies reported by Janis and King (1954; 1956) expect, the percentage of subjects who com- clearly showed that, at least under some condi- plied increased as the size of the offered reward tions, the private opinion changes so as to bring increased. Thus, with self-selection of who it into closer correspondence with the overt did and who did not make the required overt behavior the person was forced to perform. statement and with varying percentages of Specifically, they showed that if a person is subjects in the different conditions who did forced to improvise a speech supporting a point make the required statement, no interpreta- of view with which he disagrees, his private tion of the data can be unequivocal. opinion moves toward the position advocated Recently, Festinger (1957) proposed a theory in the speech. The observed opinion change is concerning cognitive dissonance from which greater than for persons who only hear the come a number of derivations about opinion speech or for persons who read a prepared change following forced compliance. Since speech with emphasis solely on elocution and these derivations are stated in detail by Fest- manner of delivery. The authors of these two inger (1957, Ch. 4), we will here give only a studies explain their results mainly in terms of brief outline of the reasoning. mental rehearsal and thinking up new argu- Let us consider a person who privately holds ments. Inthisway, they propose, theperson who opinion "X" but has, as a result of pressure is forced to improvise a speech convinces brought to bear on him, publicly stated that himself. They present some evidence, which is he believes "not X." not altogether conclusive, in support of this 1. This person has two cognitions which, explanation. We will have more to say con- psychologically, do not fit together: one of cerning this explanation in discussing the these is the knowledge that he believes "X," results of our experiment. the other the knowledge that he has publicly

Kelrnan (1953) tried to pursue the matter stated that he believes "not X." If no factors further. He reasoned that if the person is other than his private opinion are considered, it induced to make an overt statement contrary would follow, at least in our culture, that if to his private opinion by the offer of some he believes "X" he would publicly state "X." reward, then the greater the reward offered, Hence, his cognition of his private belief is the greater should be the subsequent opinion dissonant with his cognition concerning his change. His data, however, did not support actual public statement. this idea. He found, rather, that a large reward 2. Similarly, the knowledge that he has said produced less subsequent opinion change than "not X" is consonant with (does fit together did a smaller reward. Actually, this finding by with) those cognitive elements corresponding Kelman is consistent with the theory we will to the reasons, pressures, promises of rewards outline below but, for a number of reasons, is and/or threats of punishment which induced

1 him to say "not X." The experiment reported here was done as part of 3. In evaluating the total magnitude ofa program of research supported by a grant from the

National Science Foundation to the senior author. We dissonance, one must take account of both wish to thank Leonard Hommel, Judson Mills, and dissonances and consonances. Let us think of Robert Tenvilliger for their help in designing and the sum of all the dissonances involving some carrying out the experiment. We would also like to particular cognition as "D" and the sum ofacknowledge the help of Ruth Smith and Marilyn M. Miller. all the consonances as "C." Then we might

203

204 LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH

think of the total magnitude of dissonance as being a function of "D" divided by "D" plus "C."

Let us then see what can be said about the total magnitude of dissonance in a person created by the knowledge that he said "not X" and really believes "X." With everything else held constant, this total magnitude of disso- nance would decrease as the number and importance of the pressures which induced him to say "not X" increased.

Thus, if the overt behavior was brought about by, say, offers of reward or threats of punishment, the magnitude of dissonance is maximal if these promised rewards or threat- ened punishments were just barely sufficient to induce the person to say "not X." From this point on, as the promised rewards or threatened punishment become larger, the magnitude of dissonance becomes smaller.

4. One way in which the dissonance can be reduced is for the person to change his private opinion so as to bring it into correspondence with what he has said. One would conse- quently expect to observe such opinion change after a person has been forced or induced to say something contrary to his private opinion. Furthermore, since the pressure to reduce dissonance will be a function of the magnitude of the dissonance, the observed opinion change should be greatest when the pressure used to elicit the overt behavior is just sufficient to doit.

The present experiment was designed to test this derivation under controlled, labora- tory conditions. In the experiment we varied the amount of reward used to force persons to make a statement contrary to their private views. The prediction [from 3 and 4 above] is that the larger the reward given to the subject, the smaller will be the subsequent opinion change,

as a two-hour experiment dealing with " Meas- ures of Performance."

During the first week of the course, when the requirement of serving in experiments was announced and explained to the students, the instructor also told them about a study that the psychology department was conducting. He explained that, since they were required to serve in experiments, the department was con- ducting a study to evaluate these experiments in order to be able to improve them in the future. They were told that a sample of students would be interviewed after having served as 5s. They were urged to cooperate in these interviews by being completely frank and honest. The importance of this announce- ment will become clear shortly. It enabled us to measure the opinions of our 5s in a context not directly connected with our experiment and in which we could reasonably expect frank and honest expressions of opinion.

When the S arrived for the experiment on "Measures of Performance" he had to wait for a few minutes in the secretary's office. The experimenter (E) then came in, introduced himself to the 5 and, together, they walked into the laboratory room where the E said:

This experiment usually takes a little over an hour but, of course, we had to schedule it for two hours. Since we have that extra time, the introductory psy- chology people asked if they could interview some of our subjects. [Offhand and conversationally.] Did they announce that in class? I gather that they're interview- ing some people who have been In experiments. I don't know much about it. Anyhow, they may want to inter- view you when you're through here.

With no further introduction or explanation the S was shown the first task, which involved putting 12 spools onto a tray, emptying the tray, refilling it with spools, and so on. He was told to use one hand and to work at his own speed. He did this for one-half hour. The E then removed the tray and spools and placed in front of the S a board containing 48 square pegs. His task was to turn each peg a quarter turn clockwise, then another quarter turn, and so on. He was told again to use one hand and to work at his own speed. The 5 worked at this task for another half hour.

While the 5 was working on these tasks, the E sat, with a stop watch in his hand, busily making notations on a sheet of paper. He did so in order to make it convincing that this was

s

PROCEDURE

Seventy-one male students in the introduc- tory psychology course at Stanford University were used in the experiment. In this course, students are required to spend a certain num- ber of hours as subjects (Ss) in experiments. They choose among the available experiment by signing their names on a sheet posted on the bulletin board which states the nature of the experiment. The present experiment was listed

COGNITIVE CONSFCQUJCNCES 01:' FORCED CoMl'JJANCK 205

what the E was interested in and that these tasks, and how the S worked on them, was the total experiment. From our point of view the experiment had hardly started. The hour which the S spent working on the repetitive, monot- onous tasks was intended to provide, for each S uniformly, an experience about which he would have a somewhat negative opinion.

After the half hour on the second task was over, the E conspicuously set the stop watch back to zero, put it away, pushed his chair back, lit a cigarette, and said:

O.K. Well, that's all we have in the experiment itself. I'd like to explain what this has been all about so you'll have some idea of why you were doing this. [E pauses.] Well, the way the experiment is set up is this. There are actually two groups in the experiment. In one, the group you were in, we bring the subject in and give him essentially no introduction to the experi- ment. That is, all we tell him is what he needs to know in order to do the tasks, and he has no idea of what the experiment is all about, or what it's going to be like, or anything like that. But in the other group, we have a student that we've hired that works for us regularly, and what I do is take him into the next room where the subject is waiting—the same room you were waiting in before—and I introduce him as if he had just finished being a subject in the experiment. That is, I say: "Thi is so-and-so, who's just finished the experiment, and I've asked him to tell you a little of what it's about before you start." The fellow who works for us then, in conversation with the next subject, makes these points: [The E then produced a sheet headed "For Group B" which had written on it: It was very enjoy- able, I had a lot of fun, I enjoyed myself, it was very interesting, it was intriguing, it was exciting. The E showed this to the S and then proceeded with his false explanation of the purpose of the experiment.] Now, of course, we have this student do this, because if the experimenter does it, it doesn't look as realistic, and what we're interested in doing is comparing how these two groups do on the experiment—the one with this previous expectation about the experiment, and the other, like yourself, with essentially none.

Up to this point the procedure was identical for 5s in all conditions. From this point on they diverged somewhat. Three conditions were run, Control, One Dollar, and Twenty Dollars, as follows:

s

Control Condition

The E continued:

Is that fairly clear? [Pause.] Look, that fellow [looks at watch] I was telling you about from the introductory psychology class said he would get here a couple of minutes from now. Would you mind waiting to see if he wants to talk to you? Fine. Why don't we go into

the other room to wait? [The E left the 5 in the secre- tary's office for four minutes. He then returned and said:] O.K. Let's check and see if he does want to talk to you.

One and Twenty Dollar Conditions

The E continued: Is that fairly clear how it is set up and what we're

trying to do? [Pause.] Now, I also have a sort of strange thing to ask you. The thing is this. [Long pause, some confusion and uncertainty in the following, with a de- gree of embarrassment on the part of the E. The manner of the E contrasted strongly with the preceding unhesitant and assured false explanation of the experi- ment. The point was to make it seem to the S that this was the first time the E had done this and that he felt unsure of himself.] The fellow who normally does this for us couldn't do it today—he just phoned in, and something or other came up for him—so we've been looking around for someone that we could hire to do it for us. You see, we've got another subject waiting [looks at watch] who is supposed to be in that other condition. Now Professor -, who is in charge of this experiment, suggested that perhaps we could take a chance on your doing it for us. I'll tell you what we had in mind: the thing is, if you could do it for us now, then of course you would know how to do it, and if something like this should ever come up again, that is, the regular fellow couldn't make it, and we had a sub- ject scheduled, it would be very reassuring to us to know that we had somebody else we could call on who knew how to do it. So, if you would be willing to do this for us, we'd like to hire you to do it now and then be on call in the future, if something like this should ever happen again. We can pay you a dollar (twenty dollars) for doing this for us, that is, for doing it now and then being on call. Do you think you could do that for us?

If the 5 hesitated, the E said things like, "It will only take a few minutes," "The regular person is pretty reliable; this is the first time he has missed," or "If we needed you we could phone you a day or two in advance; if you couldn't make it, of course, we wouldn't expect you to come." After the S agreed to do it, the E gave him the previously mentioned sheet of paper headed "For Group B" and asked him to read it through again. The E then paid the S one dollar (twenty dollars), made out a hand-written receipt form, and asked the 5 to sign it. He then said:

O.K., the way we'll do it is this. As I said, the next subject should be here by now. I think the next one is a girl. I'll take you into the next room and introduce you to her, saying that you've just finished the experi- ment and that we've asked you to tell her a little about it. And what we want you to do is just sit down and get into a conversation with her and try to get

206 LEON FJCSTINGER AND JAMKS M. CARLSMITH

across the points on that sheet of paper. I'll leave you alone and come back after a couple of minutes. O.K.?

The E then took the S into the secretary's office where he had previously waited and where the next S was waiting. (The secretary had left the office.) He introduced the girl and the S to one another saying that the S had just finished the experiment and would tell her something about it. He then left saying he would return in a couple of minutes. The girl, an undergraduate hired for this role, said little until the S made some positive remarks about the experiment and then said that she was surprised because a friend of hers had taken the experiment the week before and had told her that it was boring and that she ought to try to get out of it. Most 5s responded by saying something like "Oh, no, it's really very interesting. I'm sure you'll enjoy it." The girl, after this listened quietly, accepting and agreeing to everything the S told her. The discussion between the J? and the girl was re- corded on a hidden tape recorder.

After two minutes the E returned, asked the girl to go into the experimental room, thanked the 5 for talking to the girl, wrote down his phone number to continue the fiction that we might call on him again in the future and then said: "Look, could we check and see if that fellow from introductory psychology wants to talk to you?"

From this point on, the procedure for all three conditions was once more identical. As the E and the S started to walk to the office where the interviewer was, the E said: "Thanks very much for working on those tasks for us. I hope you did enjoy it. Most of our subjects tell us afterward that they found it quite interesting. You get a chance to see how you react to the tasks and so forth." This short persuasive communication was made in all conditions in exactly the same way. The reason for doing it, theoretically, was to make it easier for anyone who wanted to persuade him- self that the tasks had been, indeed, enjoyable.

When they arrived at the interviewer's office, the E asked the interviewer whether or not he wanted to talk to the S. The interviewer said yes, the E shook hands with the S, said good-bye, and left. The interviewer, of course, was always kept in complete ignorance of which condition the S was in. The interview

consisted of four questions, on each of which the 5 was first encouraged to talk about the matter and was then asked to rate his opinion or reaction on an 11-point scale. The questions are as follows:

1. Were the tasks interesting and enjoyable? In what way? In what way were they not? Would you rate how you feel about them on a scale from — S to +5 where — 5 means they were extremely dull and boring, +5 means they were extremely interesting and enjoyable, and zero means they were neutral, neither interesting nor uninteresting.

2. Did the experiment give you an opportunity to learn about your own ability to perform these tasks? In what way? In what way not? Would you rate how you feel about this on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you learned nothing and 10 means you learned a great deal.

3. From what you know about the experiment and the tasks involved in it, would you say the experiment was measuring anything important? That is, do you think the results may have scientific value? In what way? In what way not? Would you rate your opinion on this matter on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the results have no scientific value or importance and 10 means they have a great deal of value and im- portance.

4. Would you have any desire to participate in another similar experiment? Why? Why not? Would you rate your desire to participate in a similar experi- ment again on a scale from — S to +5, where — S means you would definitely dislike to participate, +5 means you would definitely like to participate, and 0 means you have no particular feeling about it one way or the other.

As may be seen, the questions varied in how directly relevant they were to what the 5 had told the girl. This point will be discussed further in connection with the results.

At the close of the interview the 5 was asked what he thought the experiment was about and, following this, was asked directly whether or not he was suspicious of anything and, if so, what he was suspicious of. When the interview was over, the interviewer brought the S back to the experimental room where the E was waiting together with the girl who had posed as the waiting £. (In the control condition, of course, the girl was not there.) The true pur- pose of the experiment was then explained to the 5 in detail, and the reasons for each of the various steps in the experiment were explained carefully in relation to the true purpose. All experimental Sk in both One Dollar and Twen- ty Dollar conditions were asked, after this explanation, to return the money they had

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE 207

been given. All Ss, without exception, were quite willing to return the money.

The data from 11 of the 71 Ss in the experi- ment had to be discarded for the following reasons:

1. Five 5s (three in the One Dollar and two in the Twenty Dollar condition) indicated in the interview that they were suspicious about having been paid to tell the girl the experiment was fun and suspected that that was the real purpose of the experiment,

2. Two 5s (both in the One Dollar condition) told the girl that they had been hired, that the experiment was really boring but they were supposed to say it was fun.

3. Three 5s (one in the One Dollar and two in the Twenty Dollar condition) refused to take the money and refused to be hired.

4. One S (in the One Dollar condition), immediately after having talked to the girl, demanded her phone number saying he would call her and explain things, and also told the E he wanted to wait until she was finished so he could tell her about it.

These 11 5s were, of course, run through the total experiment anyhow and the experiment was explained to them afterwards. Their data, however, are not included in the analysis.

Summary of Design

There remain, for analysis, 20 5s in each of the three conditions. Let us review these briefly: 1. Control condition. These 5s were treated identically in all respects to the 5s in the experimental conditions, except that they were never asked to, and never did, tell the waiting girl that the experimental tasks were enjoyable and lots of fun. 2. One Dollar condition. These 5s were hired for one dollar to tell a waiting 5 that tasks, which were really rather dull and boring, were interesting, en- joyable, and lots of fun, 3. Twenty Dollar cottdi- tion. These 5s were hired for twenty dollars to do the same thing.

RESULTS

The major results of the experiment are summarized in Table 1 which lists, separately for each of the three experimental conditions, the average rating which the 5s gave at the end of each question on the interview. We will discuss each of the questions on the interview separately, because they were intended to measure different things. One other point be- fore we proceed to examine the data. In all the comparisons, the Control condition should be

TABLE 1 AVERAGE RATINGS ON INTERVIEW QUESTIONS FOR

EACH CONDITION

Question on Interview

How enjoyable tasks were (rated from -5 to +5)

How much they learned (rated from 0 to 10)

Scientific importance (rated from 0 to 10)

Participate in similar exp. (rated from —5 to +5)

Experimental Condition

Control (,V = 20)

-.45

3.08

S.60

-.62

One Dollar

(N = 20)

+ 1.35

2.80

6.45

+ 1.20

Twenty Dollars

(N = 20)

-.05

3.15

S.18

-.25

regarded as a baseline from which to evaluate the results in the other two conditions. The Control condition gives us, essentially, the reactions of 5s to the tasks and their opinions about the experiment as falsely explained to them, without the experimental introduction of dissonance. The data from the other condi- tions may be viewed, in a sense, as changes from this baseline.

How Enjoyable the Tasks Were

The average ratings on this question, pre- sented in the first row of figures in Table 1, are the results most important to the experi- ment. These results are the ones most directly relevant to the specific dissonance which was experimentally created. It will be recalled that the tasks were purposely arranged to be rather boring and monotonous. And, indeed, in the Control condition the average rating was —.45, somewhat on the negative side of the neutral point.

In the other two conditions, however, the 5s told someone that these tasks were interest- ing and enjoyable. The resulting dissonance could, of course, most directly be reduced by persuading themselves that the tasks were, indeed, interesting and enjoyable. In the One Dollar condition, since the magnitude of dissonance was high, the pressure to reduce this dissonance would also be high. In this condition, the average rating was +1.35, considerably on the positive side and signifi- cantly different from the Control condition at the .02 level2 (t = 2,48).

2 All statistical tests referred to in this paper are two-tailed.

208 LEON FESTINGER AND JAMES M. CARLSMITH

In the Twenty Dollar condition, where less dissonance was created experimentally because of the greater importance of the consonant relations, there is correspondingly less evidence of dissonance reduction. The average rating in this condition is only —.05, slightly and not significantly higher than the Control condition. The difference between the One Dollar and Twenty Dollar conditions is significant at the .03 level (t = 2,22). In short, when an S was induced, by offer of reward, to say something contrary to his private opinion, this private opinion tended to change so as to correspond more closely with what he had said. The greater the reward offered (beyond what was necessary to elicit the behavior) the smaller was the effect.

Desire to Participate in a Similar Experiment

The results from this question are shown in the last row of Table 1. This question is less directly related to the dissonance that was experimentally created for the 5s. Certainly, the more interesting and enjoyable they felt the tasks were, the greater would be their de- sire to participate in a similar experiment. But other factors would enter also. Hence, one would expect the results on this question to be very similar to the results on "how enjoy- able the tasks were" but weaker. Actually, the result, as may be seen in the table, are in exactly the same direction, and the magnitude of the mean differences is fully as large as on the first question. The variability is greater, however, and the differences do not yield high levels of statistical significance. The difference between the One Dollar condition (+1.20) and the Control condition (— .62) is significant at the .08 level (t = 1.78). The difference between the One Dollar condition and the Twenty Dollar condition (—.25) reaches only the .15 level of significance (t = 1.46).

The Scientific Importance of the Experiment

This question was included because there was a chance that differences might emerge. There are, after all, other ways in which the experimentally created dissonance could be reduced. For example, one way would be for the S to magnify for himself the value of the reward he obtained. This, however, was un-

likely in this experiment because money was used for the reward and it is undoubtedly difficult to convince oneself that one dollar is more than it really is. There is another pos- sible way, however. The 5s were given a very good reason, in addition to being paid, for saying what they did to the waiting girl. The 5s were told it was necessary for the experi- ment. The dissonance could, consequently, be reduced by magnifying the importance of this cognition. The more scientifically important they considered the experiment to be, the less was the total magnitude of dissonance. It is possible, then, that the results on this ques- tion, shown in the third row of figures in Table 1, might reflect dissonance reduction.

The results are weakly in line with what one would expect if the dissonance were somewhat reduced in this manner. The One Dollar condi- tion is higher than the other two. The differ- ence between the One and Twenty Dollar conditions reaches the .08 level of significance on a two-tailed test (t = 1.79). The difference between the One Dollar and Control conditions is not impressive at all (t = 1.21). The result that the Twenty Dollar condition is actually lower than the Control condition is un- doubtedly a matter of chance (t = 0.58).

How Much They Learned From the Experiment

The results on this question are shown in the second row of figures in Table 1. The question was included because, as far as we could see, it had nothing to do with the dissonance that was experimentally created and could not be used for dissonance reduction. One would then expect no differences at all among the three conditions. We felt it was important to show that the effect was not a completely general one but was specific to the content of the dis- sonance which was created. As can be readily seen in Table 1, there are only negligible differ- ences among conditions. The highest t value for any of these differences is only 0.48.

DISCUSSION OF A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATION

We mentioned in the introduction that Janis and King (1954; 1956) in explaining their findings, proposed an explanation in terms of the self-convincing effect of mental rehearsal

COGNITIVE CONSEQUENCES OF FORCED COMPLIANCE 209

and thinking up new arguments by the person who had to improvise a speech. Kelman (1953), in the previously mentioned study, in at- tempting to explain the unexpected finding that the persons who complied in the moderate reward condition changed their opinion more than in the high reward condition, also pro- posed the same kind of explanation. If the results of our experiment are to be taken as strong corroboration of the theory of cogni- tive dissonance, this possible alternative explanation must be dealt with.

Specifically, as applied to our results, this alternative explanation would maintain that perhaps, for some reason, the 5s in the One Dollar condition worked harder at telling the waiting girl that the tasks were fun and en- joyable. That is, in the One Dollar condition they may have rehearsed it more mentally, thought up more ways of saying it, may have said it more convincingly, and so on. Why this might have been the case is, of course, not immediately apparent. One might expect that, in the Twenty Dollar condition, having been paid more, they would try to do a better job of it than in the One Dollar condition. But nevertheless, the possibility exists that the 5s in the One Dollar condition may have impro- vised more.

Because of the desirability of investigating this possible alternative explanation, we recorded on a tape recorder the conversation between each S and the girl. These recordin

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.