To Suffer is to Love

Cognitive dissonance was first proposed by Leon Festinger (1957) to explain why our behaviors don’t always align with our attitudes towards someone or something. He argued that when our attitudes and behaviors don’t match, we experience psychological discomfort that motivates us to reduce this dissonance. As a result, we often change our attitudes to match the behavior that created the conflict (Festinger, 1957). 


One type of situation that can cause dissonance is effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959), which suggests that when we put significant effort in or suffer for something that may not have a desirable outcome, we tend to justify that effort by changing our attitudes about it. In a study by Aronson and Mills (1959), female students were told they’d be joining a group discussion about sex. However, because sex is considered a taboo topic, participants had to pass an initiation test to join the group. In the mild condition of this study, students read a list of mildly sexual words aloud to a male experimenter. In the severe condition, they had to read a much more explicit list of sexual words aloud. 


After completing the initiation test, all participants listened to the group discussion they were supposed to join. In reality, everyone heard the same recorded conversation about sexual behavior in animals, which was intentionally very boring. Participants then rated how much they liked the discussion. The results showed that those who went through the severe initiation test rated the discussion more positively than those in the mild initiation condition. Aronson and Mills’ (1959) study demonstrates effort justification—the idea that the more effort or suffering people experience for something, the more they tend to like it in order to justify what they went through. 


An example of effort justification in my own life occurred during a relationship that lasted nearly three years. After we broke up, he reached out, and we attempted to make things work again. Looking back, I realize I was unhappy and struggling during that time, but I justified staying by focusing on the years of history and love we had shared. Because I had invested so much time and emotional energy into the relationship, it felt easier to convince myself that continuing was worth it, rather than accepting that my efforts might not lead to the outcome I wanted. 


The more I focused on our history and years of emotional investment, the harder it became to admit the relationship wasn’t right, creating cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) that I resolved by convincing myself that staying wasn’t a waste and was actually worthwhile. To justify my suffering, I emphasized the positive memories and minimized the negative experiences, which made staying feel more reasonable despite my unhappiness, clearly demonstrating Aronson and Mills’ (1959) effort justification.


N = 457


Honor Code: I have acted with honesty and integrity in producing this work and am unaware of anyone who has not. /s/ Maya Moran Piedfort


References:

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 University Press.





 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Welcome to my Blog!

Hello beautiful people! My name is Maya Moran Piedfort, and I'm a senior at Southwestern pursuing a B.A. in Psychology with a minor in Feminist Studies. On campus, I'm involved in Alpha Xi Delta, the Student Foundation, the Senior Committee, and Psi Chi the International Honor Society in Psychology. I'm extremely passionate about understanding people and learning how to support them, which is why I'm so excited to be taking Social Psychology. That's all for now, see you in my next blog!
Read more

Theory of Planned Fitness

As demonstrated by sociologist Richard LaPiere (1934), our attitudes do not always perfectly predict how we behave. People sometimes act in ways that don't fully align with their beliefs. To better explain this gap, Icek Ajzen proposed the Theory of Planned Behavior (1991), suggesting that behavior is influenced not only by our attitudes but also by subjective norms and our perceived control of the behavior. According to this theory, behavior is predicted by a person’s intention, which is shaped by three factors. Attitudes , or our positive or negative evaluations of something or someone, help shape these intentions. In general, attitudes that are stronger and more specific are better predictors of behavior because they’re more accessible in memory through priming. Moreover, subjective norms also influence behaviors. The social pressures and expectations we experience from others—such as friends or family—can strongly affect the choices we make. Lastly, perceived control/self...
Read more

FAE-ling to Make the Right Attribution

The fundamental attribution error , introduced by Lee Ross (1977), refers to the tendency to explain others’ behavior as a reflection of their disposition while underestimating the influence of situational factors. This bias occurs because people naturally focus on observable behavior, which is more salient than situational factors (Heider, 1958), leading them to automatically attribute actions to the person rather than the context. One of the first and most widely known pieces of evidence for the fundamental attribution error comes from a study by Jones and Harris (1967). In this experiment, participants read essays written by students that either supported or opposed Fidel Castro, the leader of Cuba at the time. Participants were told that the writers either freely chose their position or were assigned it, when in reality, all positions were randomly assigned. After reading the essays, participants were asked to infer the writers’ true attitudes toward Castro. When participants beli...
Read more