This paper examines the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) cognitive dissonance experiment through a series of focused questions. It explains how the control group and two experimental groups ($1 and $20 conditions) differed in induced dissonance, why lower monetary rewards produced greater attitude change, and how cognitive dissonance contrasts with reinforcement theory. The paper also explores the psychological mechanisms of dissonance reduction — including attitude change, belief revision, and behavioral justification — and applies the first two steps of dissonance theory to real-world non-compliance with COVID-19 social distancing guidelines, addressing both economic necessity and misinformation-driven belief systems.
The aim of the experiment is key to differentiating all the groups involved: Groups A, B, and the control group. Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) were trying to identify the occurrence of cognitive dissonance through the motivations of the groups, thereby proving the validity of their theory over the behaviorist and reinforcement approach. The main difference between all the groups is the motivation and level of dissonance experienced. The control group experienced no dissonance, as they were not required to lie about the experimental procedure nor offered monetary compensation. The other two groups were, however, motivated to lie via monetary compensation.
Groups A and B are further differentiated by their level of "induced dissonance" through the amount of monetary compensation offered: Group A received $1, which is significantly less than the $20 offered to Group B participants. Based on the premise of cognitive dissonance, Group B was expected to experience less dissonance due to an increased — and thus more justifiable — motivation for their attitude change. Group A, on the other hand, experienced higher cognitive dissonance and a greater attitude change to compensate for the inconsistency between their behavior and their beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance is a state of conflict between a person's beliefs and their outward actions or expressions. It results in varying degrees of discomfort and uneasiness, depending on the severity of the internal conflict (Van Kampen, 2019, p. 7). This discomfort typically manifests as anxiety, shame, or guilt (Legg, 2019). Because a person can only tolerate an uncomfortable cognitive state for so long, the conflicted individual attempts to reduce their dissonance by resolving the underlying conflict.
This drive to escape the psychological tension of cognitive dissonance is termed "the principle of cognitive consistency" (Van Kampen, 2019, pp. 1–2). Dissonance reduction is typically achieved through one of three strategies: a change in behavior or attitude toward the existing belief system, a revision of the existing belief system itself, or a justification of current behavior or attitude in alignment with that belief system (Izuma & Murayama, 2019). As prescribed by the principle of cognitive consistency, the human mind continuously attempts to harmonize itself by blocking out or denying conflicting thoughts or information that contradicts an already-adopted belief system (Northrup, 2018).
The $20 group changed their opinion less than the $1 group because the theory of cognitive dissonance is valid. According to Festinger and Carlsmith (1959), cognitive dissonance theory suggests that when a reward is attached to a change in opinion or attitude, a higher reward results in less attitude change than a lower reward. This occurs because individuals offered the lower reward internalize the attitude-discrepant behavior — they must find an internal justification for their actions since the external reward is insufficient.
In the case of a high reward, the compensation itself serves as adequate justification for the change in attitude, acting as a substitute for the internal attitude shift that would otherwise be required. This external justification effectively reduces the level of dissonance that the higher-paid participant would otherwise experience, leaving their original attitude relatively intact.
"Contrasting predictions of reinforcement versus dissonance theory"
"Varying reward levels produce differing task perceptions and ratings"
"First step establishes consequences and personal responsibility"
"Applying dissonance theory to pandemic social distancing behavior"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.