| Background |
| Paradigms |
| Connections to Advertising |
| Festinger Biography |
| Conclusions |
| References |
.gif)
Paradigms
There are four accepted paradigms, or models, used to further the research and understanding of dissonance reduction (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 5).
1. The Free-Choice Paradigm:
Through the use of this model, the assertion can be made that once a decision has been completed, dissonance will be produced, and the more difficult the decision, the greater the dissonance. When a choice is made, dissonance occurs in one of two ways:1. There are positive aspects of the item not chosen.
2. There are negative aspects of the item that is chosen.In order to view the chosen item as desirable, dissonance has to be reduced by viewing the cognitions in a biased way. Employing one of Festinger’s four reduction methods listed on the background page can do this (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 5).
www.utexas.edu/student/housing/firesafety/images/toaster.jp
Example
J.W. Brehm was first to conduct experiments using the free-choice paradigm. In order to produce valid market research, Brehm employed the help of women to test eight products and rate them on their level of desirability. He then had one group make a difficult decision, choosing between two products that they rated as similarly desirable and the other group make an easy decision, choosing between two products that differed greatly in desirability. Afterwards, he had the women re-rate the desirability of the products, and remarkably, when it came to the difficult decision, women lowered the desirability of the product that they rejected and increased the desirability of the product that they chose, thus confirming the idea of the free-choice paradigm. Women who were asked to make the easy decision, made little or no change in terms of their rankings (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 6).
2. The Belief-Disconfirmation Paradigm:
The second method utilized to understand cognitive dissonance, is the belief-disconfirmation paradigm that explains that the presence of dissonance without being reduced can lead to the rejection of the dissonance-causing information, thus making the individual find acceptance for his/her beliefs by persuading others (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 7).
members.aol.com/codeufo/ flyingsaucerfantasia.html
Example
Perhaps the most intriguing example of this paradigm is illustrated in observations made by Festinger, Riecken and Schachter. The men examined a group who emphatically believed a prophecy that North America would be swallowed by water, and that they alone would be spared from destruction and evacuated by a flying saucer. The theory was supposedly transmitted to a woman in the group by space creatures. When the flood did not take place, observations were made on group members who were alone and members who were with others. Two very separate reactions took place:1. Members who were alone denied their belief in the prophecy.
2. Members who were with others maintained their beliefs and attempted to convert others to their faith (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 7).
3. The Effort-Justification Paradigm:
The effort-justification model is used to explain people’s attempts to rationalize their behavior when they engage in objectionable endeavors in order to receive some needed result. By partaking in activities that are different from an individual’s normal behavior, dissonance forms. To combat this discord, the individual must embellish the intended outcome, thus adding consonance and diminishing dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 7).
www.music.columbia.edu/.../Photos/Photos_2/Photos_2.html
Example
In 1959, Aronson and Mills tested the hypothesis of the effort-justification model by utilizing two groups of women. In order to become a member of a certain crowd, group one had to participate in a rigorous initiation that constituted participation in an embarrassing activity, while group two was given a minor and boring task. As the effort-justification paradigm states, women in the first group looked much more favorably upon their entrance to the new crowd then did group two, purely because of their entry task (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 8).
4. The Induced-Compliance Paradigm (originally the Forced Compliance Paradigm by Festinger):
The final model that helps to further cognitive dissonance research is the induced-compliance paradigm. This idea is similar to the effort-justification theory, in that both deal with individuals participating in behavior that is contrary to their normal system of actions and beliefs. Rather than being concerned solely with the positive benefits from engaging in behavior, the induced-compliance paradigm also helps to explain why people participate in abnormal behavior in order to avoid certain negative consequences. This type of reasoning helps justify behavior and diminish dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 8).
www.images.com
Example
In order to prove this theory, Festinger and Carlsmith developed an experiment in 1959 based upon the differences in dissonance reduction when various rewards are offered. A group of men were asked to complete a relatively boring task and were then given either $1 or $20, to tell an individual who had yet to complete the task, what an enjoyable experience the task had been. The men were then asked to evaluate the boring task they had completed. The results were as followed:1. Men given $1 rated the task as most enjoyable.
2. Men who were given $20, or who were not asked to describe the task to another person, rated the task less favorably.These findings indicated what is now called the negative-incentive effect, in that the less reward a person receives for doing a task, the more favorably they will look upon it, because there is a greater amount of freedom associated with the task at hand (Harmon-Jones & Mills 1999, 9).
