Theories and Theorists

Social psychology has made several strides over the years that include cognitive dissonance, conformity, and obedience to authority. Psychologists such as Festinger, Asch, and Milgram have gone through great lengths to understand how we are motivated and influenced. Through their work, we have a better understanding of why individuals do the things they do.

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance states that with regards to our beliefs and attitudes, we seek consistency. This is true for the case in a situation in which two cognitions are inconsistent with each other. When an individual holds two different cognitions, it causes tension, which Festinger (1957) refers to as cognitive dissonance. This dissonance makes you feel uncomfortable and we change our attitude in order to remove this discomfort, thereby creating consonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999). Our attitude changes, and as a result we end up changing our behavior.

Part of cognitive dissonance theory revolves around cognitive consistency. Being consistent in behavior prevents individuals from maladaptive and irrational behaviors. Festinger’s theory is important to the field of social psychology because it explains how attitude change takes place. Though his theory explained how individuals sought consistency among their beliefs, it also explained how dissonance can be reduced. It can be reduced by a number of ways including changing one or more attitudes, acquiring new information, or reducing the importance of the cognition. In any case, something has to change in order for attitude change to occur.

When we look at the first way dissonance can be reduced, we can use the example of being a smoker who wants to live a healthy life. Being a smoker goes against the perception of being healthy. Therefore, in order for dissonance to be reduced, one or more attitudes must change. In this case, an individual can give up smoking. Dissonance is reduced by eliminating the behavior.

A reduction in dissonance can also be facilitated by acquiring new information. I’m reminded of a situation where a woman showed up to a mosque by herself to protest outside of the mosque. The worshippers who attended the mosque were kind to her, brought her water, offered her food, and even invited her into the mosque to get out of the heat. The woman was under the view that Muslims were evil and they were in the United States to destroy it. In light of the new information she gained by interacting with Muslims, her views and attitude about Muslims changed. This is a prime example of how gaining new information aids in the reduction of dissonance and facilitates attitude change.

Lastly, Festinger (1957) mentioned that an individual can reduce dissonance by reducing the importance of the beliefs and attitudes involved. The same individual who I described as wanting to live a healthy life, but is also a smoker could easily say, “life is short, let me enjoy smoking while I can because it’s better to live for today in the moment.” That person would have decreased the dissonance involved with being healthy and smoking he has found a way to justify doing it, but also reduced the importance of it.

Asch’s theory of conformity shows how much we tend to be influenced by others. In one of his experiments on conformity, a participant was placed into a room with confederates and they had to say out loud which line matched the line that was on the card that was placed in front of them. The goal was to see if the participant would eventually change his or her answer, despite knowing that the answer he or she was choosing was wrong (Fiske, Gilbert, & Lindzey, 2010). The final results showed that 75% of the participants answered wrong on at least one question.

Asch wanted to investigate social pressure from a majority group and whether or not it will make a person conform. In later experiments, Asch modified the independent (procedure) and dependent (conformity) variables to determine factors that increased and decreased conformity. Among these, size of the group, difficulty of the task, and status of the majority group all increased conformity. While social support and answers in private decreased conformity (Asch, 1956).

What we learn from the theory of conformity with regards to the size of the group is that once a group reaches a certain size, conformity doesn’t increase. The optimal size of a group is about 4 to 5 and it’s all that’s needed in order for others to conform. For groups small than that, conformity varies by a certain percentage. For instance, when there were two others, conformity increased by 13%. When it was three others, it increased to 32%. However, any more than four didn’t not show a significant increase in conformity.

Along with these findings, Asch determined that the higher status someone is, the more influence he or she may have. In this case, individuals will conform to their opinions more than others (Hoffman, Granhag, Kwong See, & Loftus, 2001). This is what is known as informational influence, and this happens when people turn to others for information (Cialdini & Goldstein, 2004). We see examples of this in action every day with interactions with our boss or managers. It is also frequent along educational and religious settings where there are set roles and hierarchy.

In his findings on reducing conformity, Asch (1956) determined that it only takes one confederate to reduce conformity by almost 80%. Part of the power of conformity comes from everyone being unanimous. If one individual divests, the pull of social influence is diminished (Asch, 1956). Therefore, Asch’s findings elude to people being more concerned with others think about them rather than being correct. As the study on conformity went, individuals chose the wrong answer because everyone else did, knowing that the answer was wrong because they did not want to look peculiar.

Milgram’s controversial study was a hallmark in social psychology. It would have a lasting affect on both social and personality psychology. The experiment was held under the guise of studying the effects of punishment on learning ability. In reality, participants would end up playing the role of “teacher” and they were instructed to shock “learners” who answered the questions incorrectly or did not answer at all (Milgram, 1974). With every incorrect answer, the voltage of the shocks changed to a higher voltage. Milgram’s experiment would serve as the catalyst and inspiration for other experiments such as Zimbardo’s Stanford prison study (Benjamin & Simpson, 2009). These events are classic examples of what Lewins describes an events being dependent upon the person and the environment at the same time (Krueger, 2009). The decisions that both groups of participants made was a direct reflection of the situation that they were in.

All of the theories mentioned explain attitude change and motivation. For the research that I plan to focus on, understanding attitude change and motivation is key. One of my areas of interest is in the psychology of terrorism. I seek to understand the motivating factors of why individuals partake in terroristic acts, but I would also would like to understand what factors can change their behavior. For psychologists and researchers, understanding behavior gives insight into how to go about changing that behavior. This is applicable for everything from losing weight or in my case, addressing terrorism.

References

Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 70(9), 1–70. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0093718 ↩1 ↩2 ↩3
Benjamin, L. T., & Simpson, J. A. (2009). The power of the situation: The impact of Milgram's obedience studies on personality and social psychology. The American Psychologist, 64(1), 12–19. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0014077 ↩
Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015 ↩
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. ↩1 ↩2
Fiske, S. T., Gilbert, D. T., & Lindzey, G. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. ↩
Harmon-Jones, E. E., & Mills, J. E. (1999). Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. (E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills, Eds.). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. http://doi.org/10.1037/10318-000 ↩
Hoffman, H. G., Granhag, P. A., Kwong See, S. T., & Loftus, E. F. (2001). Social influences on reality-monitoring decisions. Memory & Cognition, 29(3), 394–404.
Krueger, J. I. (2009). A componential model of situation effects, person effects, and situation-by-person interaction effects on social behavior. Journal of Research in Personality. ↩
Milgram, S. (1974). Obedience to authority: An experimental view. New York: Harper & Row. ↩