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.