Cognitive Dissonance And Advertising Before The Purchase example essay topic

web 03/adv 382 J / mb abbott / index. htm viewed, 6 may, 2: 27 amM. Bruce Abbott, University of Texas in Austin, Sept 2003 Introduction 1957 marked the release of the unitary volume of work entitled 'A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance'. It's author, Stanford Professor of Psychology Dr. Leon Festinger noticed a tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their attitudes and behaviors (Festinger, 1957). Sometimes a situation arises where attitudes or beliefs and behaviors are not consistent with each other - thus known as dissonance.

Festinger states 'the existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance' and ' when dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance' (Festinger 1957). Therefore, in a given situation, an individual must choose between two incompatible beliefs or actions. In this theory it is revealed that attitude change generally moves in the direction of less incentive (for the individual) resulting in less dissonance as opposed to most behavioral theories which predict greater attitude change with increased incentive (for example, reinforcement). The theory discusses how individuals will make that change in an effort to eliminate the dissonance and reduce the distress felt as a result of the conflict. Introduction (continued) Festinger's (1957) classic example of cognitive dissonance is that of the cigarette smoker. Smokers are fully aware of the harmful effects of smoking, yet they continue to smoke.

How is the distress handled? To reduce the dissonance, the smoker can either change his behavior and give up smoking, or to change his attitude toward smoking. The smoker will reduce his cognitive dissonance with rationalization such as 'I am going to die anyway' or 'if I stop smoking, I'll put on weight which is equally bad for my health'. This website will discuss four primary hypotheses developed as means to reduce dissonance between attitudes and actions. The first hypothesis will examine how selective exposure prevents dissonance. This hypothesis essentially states that dissonance is reduced by associating with people like ourselves.

The second hypothesis examines how the need for reassurance is created through post decision dissonance. The third hypothesis examines how a minimal justification for a behavior can induce a shift in attitude. The fourth (and most recent) hypothesis examines the relationship of the magnitude of the dissonance in relation to the reduction of dissonance (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999, p. 4). This website will look at a classic experiment performed by Dr. Festinger at Stanford University which asks the question, 'Would I lie for a dollar?' (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959). This website looks at the cause and effect of dissonance - the paradigms used to analyze the theory, and revisions to Dr. Festinger's original theory. Next, persuasion through dissonance places the theory of cognitive dissonance in the world of advertising (with advertising samples posted as examples).

And finally, this website will look at some popular critiques to the cognitive dissonance theory. Definitions Cognitive dissonance - distress caused by inconsistency between a person's two beliefs, or a belief and an action. This distress becomes motivation to change the BELIEF. Selective Exposure - the principle that individuals only pay attention to ideas they ALREADY believe because discrepant information would lead to mental distress. Post Decision Dissonance - distress as a result of doubts about a decision AFTER the decision has been made. The result is a need for reassurance.

Generally the higher the importance of the decision, the greater the need for reassurance. Minimal Justification Hypothesis - The idea that the best way to achieve attitude change is to offer just enough reward or punishment to elicit compliance. The Stanford Experiment - 1959 Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith Would you lie for a dollar? In this classic experiment conducted at Stanford University, men were recruited to participate in an unknown study.

The men assigned the monotonous and boring task of sorting spools. The experimenter would then convince each subject to lie to waiting potential female subjects about how much fun sorting spools was, and that they should help. The men were paid either $1 or $20 to convince these females that this boring, monotonous task was in fact exciting! (Festinger and Carlsmith, 1959).

Most behavioral theories (i.e. reinforcement theories) would predict that the more a male participant was paid to lie to the female subject, the more that male subject would come to like the actual boring task (after all, yes the work was boring, but they were getting paid $20 to recruit unsuspecting help, right? ). Dissonance theory, (Festinger, 1957) however argues for the opposite prediction: liking for the boring task would be low in the $20 condition because the participant experiences little or no dissonance about lying to the female subjects in this situation -- the participant reasons that the $20 was a sufficient amount to justify lying to the female subjects... In the $1 condition, however, cognitive dissonance should be high because most people would feel distress over telling such a lie for only one dollar. Most men did not want to be thought of as a liar. The $20 was justification for a 'little white lie', therefore did not feel any distress, however those who only received one dollar began to change the way they looked at the task.

Did these men want to be known as someone who would lie for a dollar? Absolutely not. Comments would then be heard from these men to the tune of '... actually what I told the girl was true... the experiment was a lot of fun. ' These students had changed their attitudes toward the task of sorting spools to bring it into line with their behavior. Essentially, the participants in the one dollar condition saw the task in a more favorable light AFTER they lied than before they lied.

Hypothesis 1: Selective exposure prevents dissonance. Dr. Festinger states that people will avoid information or situations that will likely increase dissonance. People will gravitate toward those items that are consistent with existing beliefs and will generally gravitate toward people who share those beliefs. Selective exposure is generally effective when ideas are received that run counter to beliefs and exists only when the information is known to be a threat (Frey, 1984) (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999). Hypothesis 2: Post decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance. Festinger (1957) noted three different conditions that increase post decision dissonance - the importance of the situation, the length of time spent debating between two equal options, the difficulty in reversing the option once a decision has been made.

When cognitive dissonance is referred to in most conversations (especially conversations dealing with purchases of products or services), this post decision (i.e. buyer's remorse) is the most common aspect. Hypothesis 3: minimal justification for action induces a shift in attitude. Dr. Festinger (1957) states that the best way to change an attitude, is to alter it through behavior. This goes totally against conventional thinking. This is essentially a reverse idea of attitude influencing behavior.

A modern day example of this might be the use of free product demos to change the attitude of which product you prefer. Dr. Festinger predicts that attitude change and the reduction of dissonance depend on providing only a minimum justification (i.e. the small free product sample) for the change in behavior. Cause and Effect - Cognitive Dissonance Paradigms and Revisions to Dr. Festinger's Original Theory How is cognitive dissonance theory tested? Research is gathered to determine what happens when a person's behavior is dissonant from their beliefs and attitudes. Four paradigms have been developed to better understand patterns in dissonance reduction. The Free Choice Paradigm This paradigm states that dissonance will be a result of a decision made.

(Brehm, 1956) Research into the theory's post decision dissonance states that negative aspects of the chosen alternative and positive aspects of the rejected alternative becomes dissonant with the decision. Vice-versa, the positive aspects of the chosen alternative and the negative aspects of the rejected alternative is now consonant with the decision. The more difficult the decision, the higher level of dissonance. Reduction of dissonance will be attempted by removing the corresponding negative or positive aspects. Altering the aspects of these decision alternatives to reduce dissonance will lead to viewing the CHOSEN alternative as more desirable and the rejected alternative as less desirable. (Brehm, 1956) Cause and Effect - Cognitive Dissonance Paradigms and Revisions to Dr. Festinger's Original Theory The Belief-Dis confirmation Paradigm Dissonance arises when people are exposed to information that is inconsistent with their beliefs.

If the change in belief does not reduce the dissonance, the dissonance may lead to misinterpretation of the information. In addition, some may gravitate toward others who share that belief, or even attempt to persuade others to accept the belief. One study conducted by Dr. Festinger (Festinger, Riecken, and Schachter, 1956) involved observing a group committed to a belief that (per prophecy) a giant flood would wash away the entire continent. The group believed that flying saucers were to swoop down and save them from this massive flood. The experiment then picks up the group after they had realized there was no flood. Members of the group who were alone during this time did not maintain their beliefs, where as those who waited with other group member maintained their faith.

Those who believed sought to persuade others of their beliefs (that somehow God stepped in and prevented the flood). This persuasion would add cognizant consonance with the belief. Cause and Effect - Cognitive Dissonance Paradigms and Revisions to Dr. Festinger's Original Theory The Effort-Justification Paradigm Dissonance arises when a person is placed in a situation that involves unwanted or unpleasant activity that yields a desirable outcome. It is stated that from the belief that the activity is unpleasant, one would not engage in the activity; the cognition that the activity is unpleasant is dissonant with engaging in the activity. In a 1959 experiment, Aronson and Mills had a group of women participate in a form of initiation to become a member of a social group. Two sets of initiation with administered - severe, with women participating in embarrassing activities, and - mild with very conservative activities required.

Then the group was made out to be dull and boring. Those women who had suffered embarrassment to enter the group evaluated the group more favorably than those who were in the 'mild' initiation group Cause and Effect - Cognitive Dissonance Paradigms and Revisions to Dr. Festinger's Original Theory The Induced-Compliance Paradigm Dissonance arises when a person says or does something that goes against a prior belief or attitude. The belief is that the person would not engage in the behavior, yet promises of reward or threat of punishment provide cognition's that are consonant with the behavior. The cognition's can somewhat justify the behavior.

In fact, the greater the importance of the cognition's justifying the behavior, the less dissonance occurs. The dissonance can then be reduced by changing the belief to better reflect what was originally said. A prime example of this paradigm is the classic Stanford experiment of 1959. Since the release of Dr. Festinger's original theory, the cognitive dis so nance theorists continued to inspect and dissect the theory.

Listed are a few of the many revisions and workings of the theory utilizing a variety of approaches... Self Consistency The Self Consistency theory assumes that situations that induce dissonance do so because they create inconsistency between self-concept and behavior. (Aronson, 1973). This is a revision by Aronson on the original observations of the classic Stanford experiment. The revision looks at the inconsistencies between a person's self concept and their behavior (lying to another person).

Most people believe in their own positive self-image, and therefore are likely to experience dissonance when behaving in an immoral fashion. Personal Responsibility for Bad Outcomes (The New Look) Cooper & Fazio (1984) believed that the effects seen in dissonance studies were the result of feeling personally responsible for creating undesirable situations or consequences. The revision states that the attitude change observed in the classic Stanford experiment resulted from the participants' desire to avoid feeling personally responsible for lying to other people. Self Affirmation The theory of self affirmation states that dissonance does not occur because of cognitive inconsistency or feelings of personal responsibility, but due to behavior in a manner that goes against a person's sense of morality (Steele, 1988). Steele's revision to the classic Stanford experiment states that participants in the experiment changed their attitudes toward the task and said the asks were fun when they were indeed boring somehow diminished their sense of self worth.

The Relationship: Cognitive Dissonance and Advertising Dr. Festinger's original theory of cognitive dissonance has an essential theme that has been picked up by the advertising community - dissonance nearly always exists after an individual makes a decision involving two or more alternatives. (Festinger 1957) (Winsor and Hesperich, 2001) Positive characteristics of the rejected alternatives as well as negative features of the chosen alternative give rise to this state of dissonance within the individual. A consumer would obviously be in such a position after most costly or involving product purchasing decisions (Winsor and Hesperich, 2001). Persuasion through dissonance is a moniker that reflects the way advertising can be used to affect attitudinal change as a product of dissonance. Below are examples of pre-purchase and post purchase cognitive dissonance in the field of advertising (the most common example being the post decision dissonance example, which is the most often referred to when discussing cognitive dissonance).

The Relationship: Cognitive Dissonance and Advertising (continued) Before the purchase... Advertisers are always looking for the hot button to trigger potential customers to purchase. Advertisers will try creating dissonance in the customer's current beliefs (i.e. create dissatisfaction about products they already own and lead them to desire new products) (Winsor and Hesperich, 2001). This situation might arise when sellers use a hard-sell approach or when strong purchasing incentives are offered such as rebates, trips, etc.

This outcome is especially likely when the consumer is pushed or hurried into a purchasing decision by a 'limited time offer' or other form of temporal coercion. The dissonance produced in this situation of 'forced compliance' may be reduced by changing or intensifying opinion so that it becomes more congruent with the chosen behavior or non-behavior. Finally, exposure to new information or opinions after the decision has been made may create new cognition's that are dissonant with existing beliefs. This may occur. for instance, if an individual's peer group reacts negatively to a purchasing decision that has already been completed -- such as might occur after telling an acquaintance about a recent automobile purchase. This resulting dissonance can be reduced by changing one's own opinion, attempting to change others' opinions, or by rejecting the opinions of those who disagree. (Winsor and Hesperich, 2001) After the purchase...

According to Dr. Festinger, one method of reducing post decision dissonance involves the seeking of information which will supply consonance with the action taken (Festinger 1957). This manifestation is applied to readership in advertising as a potential source of this 'reassurance' data. In 1957, a study by Ehrlich, Guttman, Schonbach, and Mills used the example of automobile purchasing. The example states'... the purchase of a new automobile... is usually a rather important decision for a person. Considerable dissonance should exist for a new car owner immediately after he has bought his car; all 'god' features of the makes he considered, but did not buy, and 'bad' features of the one he bought are now dissonant with his ownership of the car. He should also attempt to reduce this dissonance' (Ehrlich, Guttman, Schonbach, and Mills, 1957).

Dr. Festinger notes that 1) the new car owner would read many more ads about the car they just bought than about other cars. 2) New car owners would tend to avoid reading ads about cars they considered but did not purchase. 3) New car ads which emphasize all the attractive features of the latest model would hardly reduce the dissonance which may still exist in the owner of a car that was (say) two years old. (Festinger, 1957). In a 1969 study by Oshikawa, advertising can provide reassurance that a product purchase was 'the right' purchase, and the likelihood of repurchase of that product or service may be increased. (Oshikawa, 1969).

Positive aspects of the product are emphasized, and dissonance at the post decision level may be reduced. Highlighting the negative aspects of the other alternatives declined as opposed to the chosen alternative, can also help to reduce dissonance. A consumer^1's preference for a product or service is therefore reinforced through dissonance reduction. The latter helps build a consumer^1's brand loyalty in the long run. The Oshikawa study (1969) also addresses the purchase of less important items, on a more frequent basis, thus less post-purchase dissonance. Because the need for reassurance is less, and a switch between brands is somewhat easier, consumers realize a certain lack of long term commitment to a particular brand (Oshikawa, 1969).

Therefore, it is stated that advertising may have little effect in reinforcing brand loyalty for frequently purchased products. However, advertising can have a strong effect on reassuring consumers of their purchase of a particular expensive product. A products advertising may call attention to the consumer certain positive attributes about the brand purchased and thus, reinforce the favorable attitude about the brand. Critique: Dissonance over Dissonance Many theorists regard Dr. Festinger's theory as solid. According to Harmon-Jones and Mills (E. Harmon Jones and J. Mills, 1999) 'dissonance theorists currently agree that genuine cognitive changes occur in dissonant studies... it is agreed that these cognitive changes are motivated in nature and that the source of the motivation is a form of psychological discomfort.

' However, there are major areas of disagreement in the nature of the motivation beneath the cognitive that results from dissonance. Controversy surrounds new findings which point out the fact that the original Festinger theory never specified a reliable way to detect the degree of dissonance a person experiences. This was an issue of simplicity of the results. Cornell University psychologist Daryl Bem states that attitudes change when a person acts with minimal justification, but that self-perception is a much simpler explanation than cognitive dissonance. Bem states that people judge the internal nature the way others do by observing their behavior. (Bem, 1967).

Bem conducted his own version of the classic Stanford experiment ($1/$20) to test his alternative explanation. In Bem's study, the subjects were told that the man who 'enjoyed' the monotonous spool sorting task was paid only $1 for doing so. Since it was seen that the man had no reason to lie, subjects assumed he really did like the task. Other subjects were told the man received $20 to recruit the women. The subjects assumed the man was bored with the task and was lying to get the money. (Bem, 1967).

Bem's subjects simply judged the man's attitude by looking at his actions in the given circumstances. These results supported Bem's idea that cognitive dissonance was essentially too convoluted. One continuous criticism of Dr. Festinger's theory is that is may not be falsifiable. That is, there is no solid empirical data that proves without a doubt that people will react in a specific manner in a given situation or when dealing with dissonance.

Over the next nearly fifty years, many theorists have attempted to 'correct' minor flaws they have with the original theory. Theorists such as Judson Mills (an original prot " eg'e under Dr. Festinger) proposes changing the definition of dissonance to include the degree to which a behavior leads to a consequence and desire for the consequence (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999). Eddie Harmon-Jones argues that personal responsibility for consequences plays a different role in dissonance (Harmon-Jones and Mills, 1999). Also, Joel Cooper presents a new look to the theory as he discusses the role of self implicated in dissonance processes. (Cooper and Fazio, 1984) Essentially, the past fifty years have revealed that the dissonance theory in it's present form (and with revisions and tests along the way) has made a huge impact on the study of attitude change.

Bibliography

Aronson, E. 'The Rationalizing Animal', Psychology Today, May 1973 Aronson, E.
Back to the future. Retrospective review of Leon Festinger's -- A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, American Journal of Psychology, (1997).
Aronson, E., 'Dissonance Theory: Progress and Problems,' Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A Sourcebook, 1968.
Bem, D. 'Self-Perception: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena,' Psychological Review, Vol. 74, 1967 Brehm, J.
Wick lund, R. 'Perspectives on cognitive dissonance. ' Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1976.
Cooper, J. and Fazio, R. 'A New Look at Dissonance Theory,' in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 17, Orlando, Fla., 1984 Ehrlich, D.
Guttman, I., Schonbach, P., & Mills, J. 'Post decision exposure to relevant information', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957 Festinger, L.
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance', Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 1957.
Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. $1/$20 Experiment: 'Cognitive consequences of forced compliance', Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, 1959.
Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W., & Schacther, S. 'Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. 'Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956 Frey, D.
I rle, M. [Eds.] Theorien der Socialpsychologie. Bd. I - Cognitive Theorien. 2nd edition, 198 Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J., Cognitive Dissonance Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. Washington, D.C., 1999.
O'Keefe, D. 'Cognitive Dissonance,' in Persuasion: Theory and Research, Sage, Newbury Park, Calif., 1990 Oshikawa, S.
Can cognitive dissonance theory explain consumer behavior? 'Journal of Marketing, 1969 Severin and Tankard, 'Cognitive Consistency and Mass Communication,' in Severin and Tankard, Communication Theories, 1997.
Steele, C.M. 'The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self. ' In L. Berkowitz (Ed. ), Advances in experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 21. San Diego, CA, 1988 Windsor, R.
and Hesperich, L. 'APPLICATIONS OF THE THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN MARKETING' Loyola Marymount University, Los Angeles, CA 2001.