How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance
A classic 1959 social psychology experiment demonstrates how and why we lie to ourselves. Understanding this experiment sheds a brilliant light on the dark world of our inner motivations.
The ground-breaking social psychological experiment of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do. The experiment is filled with ingenious deception so the best way to understand it is to imagine you are taking part. So sit back, relax and travel back. The time is 1959 and you are an undergraduate student at Stanford University...
As part of your course you agree to take part in an experiment on 'measures of performance'. You are told the experiment will take two hours. As you are required to act as an experimental subject for a certain number of hours in a year - this will be two more of them out of the way.
Little do you know, the experiment will actually become a classic in social psychology. And what will seem to you like accidents by the experimenters are all part of a carefully controlled deception. For now though, you are innocent.
The set-up
Once in the lab you are told the experiment is about how your expectations affect the actual experience of a task. Apparently there are two groups and in the other group they have been given a particular expectation about the study. To instil the expectation subtly, the participants in the other groups are informally briefed by a student who has apparently just completed the task. In your group, though, you'll do the task with no expectations.
Perhaps you wonder why you're being told all this, but nevertheless it makes it seem a bit more exciting now that you know some of the mechanics behind the experiment.
So you settle down to the first task you are given, and quickly realise it is extremely boring. You are asked to move some spools around in a box for half an hour, then for the next half an hour you move pegs around a board. Frankly, watching paint dry would have been preferable.
At the end of the tasks the experimenter thanks you for taking part, then tells you that many other people find the task pretty interesting. This is a little confusing - the task was very boring. Whatever. You let it pass.
Experimental slip-up
Then the experimenter looks a little embarrassed and starts to explain haltingly that there's been a cock-up. He says they need your help. The participant coming in after you is in the other condition they mentioned before you did the task - the condition in which they have an expectation before carrying out the task. This expectation is that the task is actually really interesting. Unfortunately the person who usually sets up their expectation hasn't turned up.
So, they ask if you wouldn't mind doing it. Not only that but they offer to pay you $1. Because it's 1959 and you're a student this is not completely insignificant for only a few minutes work. And, they tell you that they can use you again in the future. It sounds like easy money so you agree to take part. This is great - what started out as a simple fulfilment of a course component has unearthed a little ready cash for you.
You are quickly introduced to the next participant who is about to do the same task you just completed. As instructed you tell her that the task she's about to do is really interesting. She smiles, thanks you and disappears off into the test room. You feel a pang of regret for getting her hopes up. Then the experimenter returns, thanks you again, and once again tells you that many people enjoy the task and hopes you found it interesting.
Then you are ushered through to another room where you are interviewed about the experiment you've just done. One of the questions asks you about how interesting the task was that you were given to do. This makes you pause for a minute and think.
Now it seems to you that the task wasn't as boring as you first thought. You start to see how even the repetitive movements of the spools and pegs had a certain symmetrical beauty. And it was all in the name of science after all. This was a worthwhile endeavour and you hope the experimenters get some interesting results out of it.
The task still couldn't be classified as great fun, but perhaps it wasn't that bad. You figure that, on reflection, it wasn't as bad as you first thought. You rate it moderately interesting.
After the experiment you go and talk to your friend who was also doing the experiment. Comparing notes you found that your experiences were almost identical except for one vital difference. She was offered way more than you to brief the next student: $20! This is when it first occurs to you that there's been some trickery at work here.
You ask her about the task with the spools and pegs:
"Oh," she replies. "That was sooooo boring, I gave it the lowest rating possible."
"No," you insist. "It wasn't that bad. Actually when you think about it, it was pretty interesting."
She looks at you incredulously.
What the hell is going on?
Cognitive dissonance
What you've just experienced is the power of cognitive dissonance. Social psychologists studying cognitive dissonance are interested in the way we deal with two thoughts that contradict each other - and how we deal with this contradiction.
In this case: you thought the task was boring to start off with then you were paid to tell someone else the task was interesting. But, you're not the kind of person to casually go around lying to people. So how can you resolve your view of yourself as an honest person with lying to the next participant? The amount of money you were paid hardly salves your conscience - it was nice but not that nice.
Your mind resolves this conundrum by deciding that actually the study was pretty interesting after all. You are helped to this conclusion by the experimenter who tells you other people also thought the study was pretty interesting.
Your friend, meanwhile, has no need of these mental machinations. She merely thinks to herself: I've been paid $20 to lie, that's a small fortune for a student like me, and more than justifies my fibbing. The task was boring and still is boring whatever the experimenter tells me.
A beautiful theory
Since this experiment numerous studies of cognitive dissonance have been carried out and the effect is well-established. Its beauty is that it explains so many of our everyday behaviours. Here are some examples provided by Morton Hunt in his classic work 'The Story of Psychology
- When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic.
- People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.
- People quickly adjust their values to fit their behaviour, even when it is clearly immoral. Those stealing from their employer will claim that "Everyone does it" so they would be losing out if they didn't, or alternatively that "I'm underpaid so I deserve a little extra on the side."
Once you start to think about it, the list of situations in which people resolve cognitive dissonance through rationalisations becomes ever longer and longer. If you're honest with yourself, I'm sure you can think of many times when you've done it yourself. I know I can.
Being aware of this can help us avoid falling foul of the most dangerous consequences of cognitive dissonance: believing our own lies.
» You can read Festinger and Carlsmith's entire report at Classics in the History of Psychology.
» Read on for the best social psychology studies
Reference
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58, 203-10.
Join 18095 readers
Or, another example, "Thou shalt not kill" becomes, "It's ok to kill when an authority figure approves it".
could this apply to pathological liars?
It seems that everyone judges everything by what makes the most sense to them. In other words, it seems that everyone thinks that they would make the world's finest arbiter. The usual stance seems to be: well, I agree with most of what you just said except for this. So, you have almost got it right . . . just change this to align with what I think and you will have it all right. Everybody seems to think that they are right!
For god's sake, make me Czar of the World and I will straighten everything out. No, seriously, make me Czar and I will straighten everything out.
The opinions I have account for all I have encountered in my lifetime so they are solid. And where I don't have an opinion, I will set-up study groups to inform me of the facts and theories. Then, I will form the final opinion and make my decree. I have no cognitive dissonance because I always wait until I have considered enough evidence to know what makes the most sense. I also have no problem with changing my mind and amending my decrees if new evidence arises that warrants a shift. PS Larry Johnson had the best comment so far (in other words, I agreed with him).
Personally I think Larry Johnson's comment was so brilliant, and everything above it addressed most potential confusion, that you should just delete everything after Larry's. Including this one, and be very selective which comments you add after it.
Great post! and Larry's comment was just icing on the cake.
I'm particularly interested in how cognitive dissonance intersects with denial. What is the REASON(s) people resort to cognitive distortions, and how do you get people to stop?
My observation would be that cognitive dissonance potentially can exist in almost every type of human interaction. Two personal examples for me:
I was 'in love' with a man who had some behaviours that I considered to be unethical and immoral. For the longest time I ignored or 'stuffed' my extreme feelings of discomfort with his choices and behaviours because the sex was great and I was getting spooned every night in bed. Plus his choices were affecting others, but not affecting me directly. I finally ended it when his choices and behaviours directly affected me and my home when he wanted to use my telephone line to defraud a credit card company.
The second experience is happening now. For the past two years I have been in a professional position in the non-profit sector raising funds for a health cause that affects most people or their families at some point in their lives. An important cause. My job is somewhat prestigious and allows me access to many interesting people, organizations, beneficial opportunities and perks. In the past year, I have become increasingly disenchanted with the
entire non-profit experience and more particularly with my boss and with his inner circle of cronies. I have seen my boss lie to the board of directors, I have seen him erupt in anger at community volunteers. I have seen his cronies ignore the discomfort of donors. I have seen mismanagement of personnel and of fundraising processes. I have been on the receiving end of passive aggressive behaviours from my boss when I have challenged his decisions and behviours. I have 'stuffed' my extreme feelings of discomfort until recently when I had what can only be termed a 'breakdown' - which happened roughly 25 days ago. Now I know that the cognitive dissonance I was feeling caused my collapse. And I know I have to leave that workplace.
These, to me, are two very concrete examples of cognitive dissonance. I would be very interested to hear if others concur.
Sincerely,
Judy
"What if the lie was about a truly significant issue? What if the liar had reason to believe the recipiant would be harmed by the lie? Would the liars still feel no cognitive dissonance if they were paid a larger sum?"
The answer to these questions can be found by studying your local politician. They are prime examples of CD.
I have been thinking a lot lately about domestic abuse, particularly psychological and emotional abuse. In thinking about how abusers function and the cycles of abuse, and why the abused get sucked into the abusers control in the first place, and why they stay, or find it so difficult to leave, or keep coming back. I think the concept of CD explains a lot of it.
I would like to hear other thoughts on this. Does anyone know if this has been studied?
Well I steal things from work but I don't adjust my values to fit my behaviour, I do it because I like stealing. If they paid me a million quid a week I'd still do it.
Call it PTSD, call it avoidance, call it cognitive dissonance -- I managed to forget about sexual abuse. I know exactly how I got there and why. I turned a page, turned off the radio, switched the TV channel... The big surprise came after I became a Christian. I took disassociating from my past to a whole new level -after all I was "forgiven". How did this happen? My avoidance behaviors were so ingrained into my thinking I read them into the Bible.
people tells lies because they wish to do so. as such, the researcher is partially correct.
Dissonance can occur anywhere in society, that is why people have to stick to what they belive in and not change their ways. Many people dont have opinions and that is unfortunate. This ties into the "authority figure" study, when the "policemen" told the man to shock the "convict" if he tried to escape. It was ok for him to shock the man, because a policeman told him he could. However, he would not have shocked anyone otherwise.