Like Mother, Like Daughter

You would never tell from this picture, but my mother and I aren’t exactly best friends. I call my dad almost every day just to say “hi” when I’m walking to class, but generally the only time my mother hears the sound of my voice on the phone is if she happens to answer my dad’s cell for him – which I’m convinced she does simply because we would never talk at all if she didn’t.

Fortunately, our lack of communication is also positively correlated with our lack of arguments. Starting from the time I could talk and continuing up to this very day my mother have been having verbal battles of epic proportions. It goes without saying, however, that our worst fights took place when I was in high school – my angsty teenager phase.

Our arguments were the perfect example of conflict spirals. Conflict spirals are disagreements or quarrels that begin with one person (or party) irritating a second person, who responds in a similar irritating way, which causes the first person to take additional action, and on and on and on (Brett et al., 1998; Rubin at al., 1994). Interestingly, there are several different things that can cause conflicts to escalate in such a way. In the case of my mother and I, however, the spirals were most certainly due to only one thing: sunk costs.

Sunk costs – also referred to as entrapment and escalation effect – is when parties in conflict attempt to justify their past investments by increasing their commitment to a cause, which is usually a failing one (Karlsson et al., 2005, Staw, 1997; Tan & Yates, 2002; Wong et al., 2006).

I’d like to be able to tell you specifically what at least one of our fights was about, but they escalated to such a high degree that I honestly could never remember what a single one of them was about. All I know is that they would start at something completely trivial and end with screaming to the point of voice loss and someone driving off for several hours. I can certainly imagine how one of them went though.

I would walk into the kitchen where she was cooking a delicious dinner – despite our differences there’s still no denying that she is a stellar chef – and she would remind me to finish a worksheet that I had mentioned I had for homework. I would be irritated from a long and get offended easily and say, “Mother how long have I been a straight A student? HOW many times have I EVER needed you to remind me to do my homework?! NEVER!” She would be upset by my disrespect and respond with even more anger saying, “How dare you talk to me in such a way! I’m just trying to look out for you and take an interest in your life! HERE I AM SLAVING OVER A MEAL AND YOU CAN’T EVEN HELP SET THE TABLE! YOU’RE SO UNGRATEFUL!”

I wouldn’t even care about her telling me to do my homework any longer but I wouldn’t want to back down and admit that I was out of line, so I would get even MORE upset, go to the cabinet, and start slamming down plates on the table, all the while yelling, “HERE! I’LL JUST DO EVERYTHING! I’LL SET THE TABLE, DO THE LAUNDRY, MAKE GOOD GRADES SO THAT YOOOOOUUUU’LL LOOK LIKE A GOOD MOTHER! Jonathan [my brother] NEVER has to do ANYTHING around the house! I HATE YOU!”

Similarly, my mother would likely want to save face as well and would throw down her spoon and launch into a triad about something completely unrelated like how she works so hard and doesn’t deserve to be treated like dirt in her own home by her own daughter. I’d storm out of the room, then storm back in, slamming doors all along the way. We would scream more and more, neither of us wanting to give up and admit that all of it was for nothing.

Thankfully, my dad – the referee, the peacemaker – would always make me apologize, but you see just how easy it is to get caught in a conflict spiral due to sunk costs. If we both had stopped pouring more and more anger into our fight in an attempt to justify all of the anger before it sooner, things never would have reached such a point.


*As a side note, I really do love my mom dearly and respect her more than any other woman on the planet. According to my dad, we fight the way we do because we’re really so much alike. He’s probably right.
________________________________
Brett, J. M., Shapiro, D. L., & Lytle, A. L. (1998). Breaking the bonds of reciprocity in negotiations. Academy of Management Journal, 41, 410-424.

Karlsson, N., Juliusson, E., & Gärling, T. (2005). A conceptualisation of task dimensions affecting escalation of commitment. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 17, 835-858.

Rubin, J.Z., Pruitt, D. G., & Kim, S. H. (1994). Social conflict: Escalation, stalemate, and settlement. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Staw, B. (1997). The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. Organizational decision making (pp. 191-215). New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press.

Tan, H., & Yates, J. (2002). Financial budgets and escalation effects. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 87, 300-322.

Wong, K., Yik, M., & Kwong, J. (2006). Understanding the emotional aspects of escalation of commitment: The role of negative affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 282-297.

More Dissonance, But For a Good Cause

The instant that high prices for Kaplan courses was mentioned in class I thought of my roommate Sarah. She won’t be taking the GRE, but she will be taking the LSAT. In the video below, you will see Sarah and a perfect example of effort justification.



As explained in one of my previous blogs, cognitive dissonance theory states that when an individual’s attitudes and behaviors are inconsistent with one another it creates psychological tension that he or she is highly motivated to reduce, which means either changing the behavior or changing the attitude (Festinger, 1957). Interestingly, there are three different situations under which cognitive dissonance arises: (1) induced compliance, or induced justification, (2) effort justification, and (3) post-decision dissonance.

As displayed by Aronson and Mills (1959), effort justification is what comes about when we find ourselves rationalizing that for which we suffer. This suffering comes in many forms; it is anything we pay for – monetarily, painfully, with time, etc.

As you could see in the video, Sarah’s attitude and behavior were discrepant.

Her Attitude = $1000+ is a lot of money
Her Behavior = Bought LSAT prep course

These two concepts are clearly in opposition with each other, so people who pay for expensive prep courses – such as Sarah – must justify it. Because they suffer (by paying absurdly large amounts of money), they must think,“This course will really help me out. It’s so expensive there’s no way I can procrastinate and waste my money. It is extremely important that I do well on this test, and this course is what will make it possible for me to achieve my goals.”

Importantly, Sarah was able to admit that she is not self-motivated enough to get by studying from a $30 LSAT prep book. With such a relatively inexpensive book there would be no dissonance if she did not study much from it, and therefore no need to change her behavior (to study more).

Additionally, you’ll notice that she decided to pay for the Kaplan course herself, rather than allowing her parents to foot the bill. This certainly makes a much larger impact; had she not paid for it herself, there would be no financial suffering and consequently it would be less likely that she would study as hard.

Furthermore, she mentions the fact that the Kaplan course offers her a lot more study aids and practice materials than a simple prep book would, but it seems plausible that it will be the justification for her financial suffering that will make the most impact.

Similarly, the same effect can be found in my friend Ashley's love for her experience in high school marching band.



As you could see, Ashley's attitude and behavior clashed as well.

Her Attitude = Band consumed a lot of time and caused a great deal of physical strain
Her Behavior = Stayed in band for all of high school

Again, these two concepts are in opposition with each other, so people who choose to be a part of organizations that are so demanding – such as Ashley – must justify their involvement with them. Because they suffer (by spending long hours at practice doing stressful exercises and getting yelled at), they must think, “This organization is amazing. It’s so demanding and so hard, I must really love the people I'm with and the music we play to put myself through such torture day after day.”

The same reactions of love for organizations that practically terrorize their members can be seen in fraternities, the military, and beyond. They all require that their members change the way they feel (i.e., decide that being treated badly was worth it) or change their behavior (i.e., leave the group).

In sum, both instances - Sarah's Kaplan studying and Ashley's love of band - stand as excellent examples of people's ability to justify and rationalize discrepancies between their attitudes and behaviors.
______________________________
Aronson, E. & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Oh Infomercials, How You Tempt Me!

During the summers I used to be slightly nocturnal, staying up until 4 a.m. and waking up around 2 o’clock in the afternoon. What would I do during the wee morning hours? Well, if I wasn’t talking on the phone with a delinquent guy who had his hair shaved into a mohawk or reading meaningless chick-lit (the book equivalent of a chick-flick), I was watching TV. If there’s one thing that I love about late night TV, it’s infomercials.

Infomercials are notorious for two things: (1) being completely unrealistic and (2) using the that’s-not-all technique. The that’s-not-all technique consists of two parts. The first part requires that a seller offers an inflated request. Then, he or she must reduce the appearance of the request’s size by presenting the potential buyer with an added bonus or discount (Burger, 1986). That is, people are more likely to make a deal or buy a product when it appears to have improved.

My favorite infomercial – after the rotisserie oven, which comes in at a close second – is the advertisement for Miracle Blade. Don’t you dare laugh; you know they’re SO COOL! I mean, who doesn’t want a set of knives that can cut through sheetrock, concrete, and the sole of work boots?!



I can just hear the infomercial now, “Order in the next 60 seconds and we’ll throw in a free Santoku knife at no extra charge!” Nevermind that I have no idea what a Santoku knife is, I should totally buy this set for $39.99 so that I can have one!

Or “For just 8 easy payments of $9.99 you’ll get one Miracle Blade Slicer, a Rock 'n Chop, a Filet and Boning knife, one Chop 'n Scoop, a Paring Knife, All-purpose Kitchen Shears, 4 Steak knives, a Tips & Guide booklet with Chef Tony’s secret recipes, AND as an added bonus you’ll also get 1 Additional Miracle Blade Slicer!!!!!!!!!”

Oh my gosh! How could ANYONE not want to buy a set when they throw in that extra slicer?! Really! Better yet, what about when they sell it to you as “a $460 value for only $39.95.”

If I had had a job and credit card when I first started watching infomercials there’s no telling how many of those Miracle Blades I would have called in for. Surely I’m not the only one who has felt this way either, because according to their website they have sold over 12 million Miracle Blade knives since 1989.

Miracle Blade – like so many other infomercials floating through the airwaves at 2 a.m. – always intends to sell its customers all of the pieces (including the extra Miracle Blade Slicer and the Santoku knife), but when they sweeten the pot before we’ve had a chance to consider the original deal it makes the deal seem improved, and therefore makes it more likely that people will call in and throw down the requested $39.95.
__________________________
Burgerm J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that’s-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.