How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance
[Photo by Darwin Bell]
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
» If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to PsyBlog (RSS).
Reference
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58, 203-10.
Labels: Social Psychology
51 comments
This was very interesting, I've seen this played out many times in my life and others. I liie this blog a lot!
It is interesting. I've heard how cognitive dissonance explains how when we ask someone for a favor they tend to view us more favorably? (not sure if that's true or not)
It seems like it also could explain some "Groupthink" behaviour.
Yes, interesting and good article, and I'll look for how it happens in my own life.
I also wonder if there isn't some interesting individual differences here.
For instance, I notice for myself that when the threshold for entering a group is high (costly or difficult otherwise), I tend to become hypercritical of the group, thinking that since the threshold is high, it better be darn good, and it usually doesn't quite live up to my expectations. So for me, the higher the threshold, the more likely I am to be disappointed.
Sunchaser, the effect you're talking about is certainly established - I'm not sure exactly how it is connected to cognitive dissonance though.
Per, it sounds like you're doing well at resisting the cognitive dissonance!
The author lost me at "Now it seems to you that the task wasn't as boring as you first thought". It didn't seem that way to me at all! My reaction to this line was: "Oh? It does? Says who?".
I realize expecting the experiment to work in do-it-yourself article form is a bit much, but why present it this way if it just doesn't work?
Eelis, the idea is to try and give you a clear idea of the experimental procedure. As you say expecting it to 'work' is asking a little too much of a written description!
Really interesting article!
I'll be looking out for this now!
Ever wonder how anyone could still support Bush, et al., the Neocon agenda, the WOT or WOD even in light of all the obvious lies and deceptions? This is how.
Thanks for yet additional insight into why religion works and has such power to keep its adherents together as a herd. The intellectual problems and blatant inconsistencies and fallacious (factually insupportable) claims should splinter "believers" and send them in their separate, individual directions, yet they stay grouped. My early experience in fundamentalist and evangelical groups is that they cannot survive without constant reinforcement of flawed preachments on what are potentially troubling areas. Their insistence on worshiping together and constantly "feeding the flock" keep people distracted and their focus misdirected so that they never quite have the time or the will to confront what they think they believe objectively or clinically.
It's important to remember that these studies point out how most people behave. At the end of the day we're all individuals and it doesn't work the same for everyone.
Some people will be more susceptible to this than others.
Cornelis
memeweaver.com
Hey, don't leave us hanging. How can we better identify the lies we tell ourselves? It's so easy to see them in others, but ourselves....
OK I admit the last time i studied statistics was a LONG time ago, but that said, this study seems deeply flawed.
First off-- oif the purpose of the study was to fnd out objective data abut "cognitive dissonance" why exclude data from people who found their own ways to deal with effectively? Being suspicious of the set up seems likely to indcate a highly intelligent (or intuitive) subject, perhaps one who prefers not to lie to themelsves or others.
To exclude them shows test bias which, it seeems to me, goes MUCH farther to invalidate the study than inclding smart people would have done.
Second, the study des not address the variable of the importance of the opinion to the subject's reaction to changing it. The opinion of boringness or interestingness has NO ramifications in the subject's life and self image after the test is over. What if the redudiation of an opinion requires repudiation of a stongly held opinion/belief? Same result? We do not know.
nor do we REALLY kow WHY a high reward erases the need to make other adjustments for maintenance of "cognitive congruence." It seems the experimenter just assumes a high monetary reward is always going to seem adequate justification for telling a lie. (Ergo no need to adjust one's real opinion about the specific--but intrinsically insignificant-- issue...) but what about one's opion of ones self as an honest person? 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?
This monetary reward assumtion is a pretty powerful assumption and one which also reflects a powerful testing bias.
Ergo, in MY non-rewarded opinion this "study" raises FAR more questions than it answers.
carroll straus,
I do think you are missing the point a little, although your concerns seem accurate enough to me.
You don't need statistics to look at this, just empiricism and the scientific method. All any experiment says is: "Under these conditions this happens".
In effect, this experiment demonstrates that under certain conditions a statistically significant # of participants will change their opinions. That is all.
The experiment is geared to demonstrate that CD occurs, not to explain how and why and for what it occurs. Granted you can look at the experimental setup and deduce that the designers have an idea of how CD is induced. But there can be no absolute conclusion about a general principle in this direction via this method, only "Under these conditions, this (CD) occurs".
-Smacksim
leaving more questions then answers is a characteristic of great experiments. Its when you start hearing about answers is when things start to become dangerous.
I know this to be true in myself. I may have a strong negative opinion about a movie but somebody with the oppositie opinion may sway me. Is this not simply being open to cultural dialogue, being willing to see another point of view? Somebody does not just say "No it was actually interesting." They explain why they thought it was interesting and then it becomes sort of a debate between one opinion and another. Can't we be swayed one way and the next before we find equilibrium on a subject?
I think a perfect example of the group with a high barrier to entering is ivy league education :) We all have our opinions about it and I'd love to hear what students think about it - before they join and after their graduate.
That would make for a very interesting study!
Great article! Good look at how we lie to ourselves.
Great post. Thanks. Cognitive dissonance, always wondered what that was. :-)
If the maxim of not lieing was followed, the results would be plain and "boring." As a Christian who tries not to lie, I would tell the experimenter that the task was boring, and I would not accept the bribe. If allowed to inform the next person, I could spare them from wasting their time. The webs we weave would be less snaring if we only followed moral rules.
Matthew, the problem is that a lot of the time we really don't realise we are weaving ourselves in a web. I've made it clear in this post so that you can see what is going on, but in reality you almost certainly wouldn't know you were lying to yourself.
If you don't believe me about this, and I would understand if you didn't, then I'll be addressing the inaccessibility of our inner thoughts in a future post.
to Joe:
Let's not say 'religion' and really mean that limited number of 'Christian schools I am personally familiar with', shall we? Not every congregation of 'religious people' is a 'flock' getting together to keep themselves and each other from critical thought. Ah, generalization, that most interesting of human faculties. Stay critical, Joe. All the best to you.
Great blog, great experiment.
I don't do much of this. I am usually well aware that what I'm doing is wrong, and only rationalize for the benefit of others. I typically join groups only for their utility, whether social or technical.
This explains why I was behaving the way I usually do.
It's perfect to say that identifying the truth of the situation is important but at the same time, pragmatism also comes into the picture which actually how you should behave in a situation.
I believe that those who can do both at the same time are the ones who rule.
Hi there. Interesting blog. Was thinking about this topic just the other day...see 'wondering about wonder...', now I know the 'name' for it...You might also be interested in the 'Rhetorical Devises' link on my Blogroll, he's written a BEAUTIFUL essay about CLEAR writing....Will be back. Cheers, C
Very interesting article, even more if I compare which what is called "cognitive dissonance" in marketing, the fact that customers regret what they just bought...
I think this is very common in all the students fraternity and associations, well it is the feeling I have !
The concept in this article is explained more clearly in Robert Cialdini's book, "Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion." See chapter three, "Commitment and Consistency."
The beauty of Cialdini's book is that it explains concepts like this one without resorting to jargon like "cognitive dissonance." It's easier to remember that you're motivated to act consistently with your previous actions than it is to remember what cognitive dissonance is.
It's funny, behavior like this usually annoys me, because I feel like a person is being manipulative. Most of the traits in the studies of "Why We do Dumb or Irrational Things" actually make me feel the same way. Maybe this is why I'm not sociable?
Then again, I do tons of things which are widely regarded as irrational, and many of them are overcompensation due to trauma in the past. I'm not sure "rational" is even a well-defined concept, actually.
Often I feel like sociology research seems to have contempt of people for not being "rational" without investigating whether their concept of rationality can even be formalized or makes any sense at a basic level. For example, I was reading about Beck's cognitive theory of depression recently, and once again I saw the words "dysfunctional" and "irrational" when applied to peoples' depression popping up all over the place.
Sociology researchers apparently have a vague idea of what people should be doing and are trying to force them to do it, or study why people aren't doing it. Rather amusing when you consider the self-referentiality in the statement.
In my experience, many of the behaviors that are "irrational" or "dumb" are simply a function of peoples' extroversion and hence when they lie a little (or even to themselves) it is often to be polite or maintain social tranquility, and when they have bystander apathy it is again because of similar reasons. These behaviors aren't usually bad and are instead helpful and maintain group happiness, so I wish sociologists would stop labeling them as "irrational" and be a little more thoughtful.
This is called bad faith, and it's not that ground breaking an idea...
Very often in life, things that are clearly separated in the "10 most important social psychology ..." are mixed and added up.
I think I have a very recent example of both group conformity and "cognitive dissonance" (or the commitment stuff of Cialdini, that's true). I let you be judge.
It happened recently in a forum shared by women only (no sexism here : it happened that way). Several of them received by mail discounts for purchasing a very big shopping website and, by comparing the discounts code, they discovered a flaw in the use of the code.
That way, they could use each other's code and get a discount at each purchase for each of them (actually, the problem for the website was that it was not a percentage but a global price reduction + a gift). So, some of the women were very proud to say how they could order tons of small and low-priced stuff without paying anything (up to 20 deliveries with 20 same gifts !).
Some of the women were then very proud to sell on Ebay the gifts and stuff they did not need after all ...
In terms of group psychology study, the way that this rapid emulation gained the women following the forum was very instructive. A group is there but most of them know not much of each others. They conform to the group behaviour without questioning about the morality of what they all do and if one had asked questions, they would have found some very nice statement to justify what they would not have bared from others ("everyone would have taken the opportunity")
For example, if I am a good programer and hacker and find a way to pollute their posts with tons of targeted commercials on the forum, they would hate me for sure but what is the difference with what they have done ? I just exploited a flaw in their "system" ("everyone would have taken the opportunity")...
One thing I would note...I would lie about how interesting it is based on the idea that if I make the presenters think I really liked it, they would continue to use me & it'd be a continuing source of income :)
Is this a behavior that passive agressive people use?
Anyone can admit to having traveled this mental path -to one degree or another. Denial of this is either prideful, self-ignorant or both. The very subtlety of the "circumstance" (low stakes, small reward, et cetera) is tailor made to invite CD response if its going to happen at all... and it does, strong internal frame of reference or otherwise. Live life, own up, and chill out.
Michael Amos
PS: Amen, Jeremy Dean. I'll look for that "inaccessibility" note of yours.
Interesting article with one glaring flaw: the title. Cognitive disonance does not begin to encompass the range of reasons we lie to ourselves. If any umbrella reason can be cited surely it is "to achieve the gratification of some desire".
I'll cite another famous study that I'm sure you will recognize and that is virtually a classic in the field. Yes, there was bound to be considerable cognitive dissonance among the subjects but the results clearly show that a wide range of mechanisms led to the lies.
The set-up: A group of people decided they wanted to invade Iraq. One day an attack was launched against them from the soil of Afghanistan and by people who were not citizens of Iraq. The subjects invaded Afghanistan. They also wanted to invade Iraq but their intelligence agencies kept reporting that Iraq had nothing to do with the attack against them. So they created a new intelligence agency which they would direct themselves: an agency created to "get it right" at long last....
Certainly explains why people believe the official version of 911 (among other lies). A lot of hard evidence exists that would shatter most people when it comes to what they believe is reality. There is always a lot more than what is on the surface, it takes the strength to break from your own self-induced ignorance. Do you have it? If so, look around you. Much of what you see is not what "actually is". Another good example would be the government of the USA taking away your freedoms. Ever wonder why 911 happened? The answer is all around you. It was not just the "muslims" that orchestrated it. It would be a "severe conflict" internally for those that were faced with the reality that some within this government had something to do with it. But then again, it is a lot easier to follow the crowd because it is that you have been conditioned for all of your life.
The human mind is intelligent enuogh to find interesting WHAT is actually interesting.
For example: you can do a very routine and boring job experimenting something, but you find it extremely interesting if it brings you toward a big discovery.
As much interesting as something very boring which can bring you a good money.
That is why the communist ideology fails.
Nobody likes working.
Unless he has some kind of ideological (if you are a scientist) or materialistic goal.
You like to work for a goal, whatever it can be.
The experiment does not seem to make the subject lie. Instead, the circumstances change his perceptions. If I had a boring task to do, I'd want to find ways to find it more appealing.
the fastest way to make people run like hell is to tell them the truth.
(they will continue to believe the lie they always have because it is easier to do so rather than having "your boat rocked too much".
It just means you are ignorant, not that the new information can't be correct!!
This post has been removed by the author.
There is too little information on the article that I can´t produce an opinion about it
Shouldn't there have been some sort of control group, brought right to the interview, no lying involved? What if half of them had said that the experiment was moderately interesting? Might be, and I suspect this to be true, that people tend to convince themselves that what they do is meaningful and worthwhile, almost no matter what it is.
They didn't know why they were asked to lie, but this point I feel is being missed; They WERE asked to say that the experiment was interesting. They were not told why they were to say that, only that it was a part of the experiment. In this situation, I certainly would not feel like I was lying, just as little as the people conducting the experiment felt like they were lying. They were, technically, but lying is not itself a bad thing (unless you think in unevolved terms of religious dogmatic moral) and a person can distinguish between right and wrong, or so I believe, in more sophisticated and subtle manners than through categorically dismissing certain acts as immoral (again, unless they are brainwashed religious people).
A lot of the time,I find myself lying to myself.As in,i realize I'm lying while I'm lying.The thought is sort of automatically shut off,though it's still there and I can lie to myself in peace.
I for the most part have stopped lying to myself. The best way i can explain it is I began questioning and thinking about things. At some point in time I realized I thought some things because its what i was raised and told to believe. I began to question my own brain. The more i did it the more i began to realize what the world was really like. One thing i ended up doing was seperating my thoughts and my emotions, because emotions can change your thoughts, and thoughts can change your emotions. Once i could think things through without letting emotion skew my perspective, i began to see how things actually were. I also started being able to control my emotions with my thoughts, and seeing the lies other people had which controlled their beliefs, thought processes, and actions. I could very easily read people through their tone of voice, what they say, the words they use to say it, and body language, just by thinking "whats going on in their head that caused them to do that?", and when i knew why they did it, i could easily manipulate their thoughts, like making them think something boring was interesting.
If you want to see a world without lies, it basically comes down to how logically you think, and how much you can control your emotions(if you think about it, theyre pretty much the same thing). I've gotten to the point where i realize that life is basically a big distraction, you do things to keep yourself occupied. Anything you do has absolutely no meaning, except the one you give it. Ive gotten to the point where if im sad, ill just think to myself "ive only got one life to live, why am i spending it being sad? I should be happy while i still can" and it works because i believe nothing should make me sad, i just need to realize i cant do anything about it, and get over it, and not let it bother me. The way i see it, anything you see, hear, taste, smell, feel, or think, its all in your head, so however much you control your head is how much you control every aspect of your life.
Josh, there was a control group. Some people did the task without the manipulation and they confirmed the task was indeed very boring!
it is true "sunchaser". nobody want's to be told what to do. if you ask them and let them know it's a favor, chances are they will do it. i use it all the time.. not to get my way but to get things done.
What I find interesting in these types of studies is that an authority figure (the researcher) gives the subject permission to lie, so that it "really isn't lying". Most people have internal mechanisms to help them avoid unethical behavior (religion, values instilled by their families, a personal code of honor, past bad experiences resulting from the behavior) so they avoid doing it. But when an authority figure rationalizes it for us (it's ok to torture that prisoner - it's urgent that we get the information) we do things we normally would not do.
What has caused a lot of mental distress (and some suicides) in military personnel is that, on the one hand, they are told by one set of authority figures to observe the Geneva Conventions, but then they are pressured by another, more insistent and nearby authority figure, that it's ok to violate the norms. That creates a lot of cognitive dissonance. Some resist but most go along.
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