How and Why We Lie to Ourselves: Cognitive Dissonance

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':

o    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.

o    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.

o    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.



Reference

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58, 203-10.

 

我们为什么去做愚蠢而不合理的事情：十大杰出社会心理学研究（二）——我们如何以及为何对自己撒谎：认知失调

我们为什么去做愚蠢而不合理的事情：十大杰出社会心理学研究（二）

我们如何以及为何对自己撒谎：认知失调

 

 

1959年的一个经典的社会心理学实验证明了我们如何以及为何对自己撒谎。对这个实验的理解很好地解释了我们内在动机的阴暗世界。

 

这个无比创新的实验是由Festinger和Carlsmith（1959）负责的。人们总是试图解释自己的思维和行为，而这个实验正是提供了对于这种自我解释的重要而深刻的理解。实验中充满了巧妙的骗术，所以对它最好的理解方法就是想象自己正身临其境。那么请坐好，放松，让我们回到过去。现在的时间是1959年，而你是一位斯坦福大学的本科生……

 

作为你课程的一部分，你同意参加一项“表现衡量”的实验。你被告知这个实验需要两个小时。由于你原本每年就需要作为被试参加一定数量的实验，所以这次只是多了两个小时而已。

 

你并不知道，这个实验会成为社会心理学的一个经典。在你看来似乎是实验者造成的意外事故实际上都是被小心控制的骗局的一部分。不过就目前来看，你是无辜的。

 

 

 

准备

 

进了实验室，他们告诉你实验是关于你的预期如何影响你在一个任务中的实际经历的。很显然，被试被分为两组。而在另外一组中，被试被告知了一个特殊的关于这次研究的预期结果。为了清楚地灌输这个预期结果，一个显然刚刚完成这项任务的学生正在给另一组被试作非正式的简要介绍。不过，在你的这组里，被试不会被告知预期结果。

 

你可能会纳闷为什么要告诉你所有这些东西。虽然如此，这样看起来似乎更加刺激，因为你现在知道了一些这个实验的背后过程。

 

于是你开始着手于第一个任务，不过很快又发现它无比地无聊。头半个小时里，你被要求将一些线轴放到一个箱子里。接下来的半小时里，你又被要求将一些钉子放在一块木板旁边。说实话，相比这个，你宁愿看着油漆变干。

 

在任务的结尾，实验员感谢你的参与，并告诉你很多其他被试发现这个任务非常有趣。这有点令人困惑——这个任务明明很无聊。管他呢，你就这么让它过去了。

 

 

 

实验的疏忽

 

然后那个实验者看上去有一点尴尬，他开始吞吞吐吐地解释说出现了一点小差错。他说他们需要你的帮助。在你之后的那个被试是属于在任务开始前就知道预期结果的那一组的。这个预期结果就是任务很有趣。不幸的是，通常负责告诉别人预期结果的那个人没来。

 

所以，他们问你是否愿意代劳。不但如此，他们还提出会为此付给你1美元。因为这是在1959年，而且你是个学生，所以对于这么一点小事这1美元的酬劳也不算完全微不足道。并且，他们告诉你将来可能还会用的到你。这钱听起来很容易赚，于是你答应了他们的要求。这真不错——起初这个实验只是作为为了完成课程的一个部分，现在倒让你捡到了一点现钱。

 

你很快被介绍给了下一位被试，她将要去做你刚刚完成的那个任务。按照指示你告诉她，她将要做的任务非常有趣。突然间你因为给了她太高期望而感到一阵后悔。这时，实验者回来了。他再一次对你表示感谢，而且又一次告诉你很多人都觉得这个任务很有趣，也希望你同样这么认为。

 

然后你被引导进入另一间房间，在那里你接受了关于刚才那个实验的采访。其中一个问题问你，刚才那个任务是否有趣。这让你停顿了一下，并引发了你的思考。

 

现在这个任务看起来似乎没有刚才那么无聊了。你开始发觉即使是线轴和钉子的重复运动也蕴含了一种对称美。而且这一切都在科学的名义之下。这是一个有价值的劳动，并且你希望实验可以得出一些有趣的结果。

 

那个任务仍然不能被算是非常好玩，但是也许也没有那么糟糕。再回想一下，你发现它没有你最开始认为的那么无聊。你给它的评价是比较有趣。

 

实验结束后你和同样参加了实验的朋友聊天。比较了一下后你们发现除了一个重要的区别外，你们两个的经历是完全一样的。她得到的赏金比你得到的多多了：20美元！这让你第一次开始怀疑其中是不是有一些“阴谋”。

 

你问她关于线轴和钉子的任务：

 

“哦，”她回答道，“真是无聊透了，我给了它最低的评价。”

 

“不。”你坚持反驳，“没有那么糟糕。事实上如果你仔细想想，它还是挺有意思的。”

 

她不可思议地看着你。

 

到底是怎么回事？

 

 

 

认知失调

 

你刚刚所体验到的是认知失调的力量。研究认知失调的社会心理学家对于我们如何处理两种矛盾的想法很感兴趣。

 

在上面这个实验中，一开始你认为任务很无聊，然后他们付给你钱，让你告诉另外一个人任务很有趣。但是，你不是那种随便撒谎的人。所以你如何解决作为一个诚实的人的真实看法和对下一个被试撒谎的矛盾？你得到的金钱很难安抚你自己的良心——那些钱挺不错，但是还不算那么有份量。

 

你的大脑决定认为这个研究实际上比较有趣，以此来解决这个难题。那个告诉你其他人都觉得任务很有趣的实验员帮你坚定了这个结论。

 

与此同时，你的朋友没有必要经历这些内心的矛盾。她只是对自己说：我为了撒这个谎得到了20美元。对于像我这样的学生来说这是一小笔财，足以为我撒的小谎提供足够的理由了。无论实验者告诉我什么，这个任务始终都是无聊的。

 

 

 

一个美丽的理论

 

在这个实验之后，人们又进行了大量关于认知失调的研究，并且有了可喜的成果。它的美丽在于它解释了我们每天生活中的许多行为。以下是Morton Hunt在他的著作《心理学的故事》（“The Story of Psychology”）中提到的几个例子。

 

 

 

 

• 当你试图加入一个团体的时候，越是难以进入，你就越珍惜你的会员资格。为了解决（1）你为了加入他们而需要越过的障碍和（2）其实那只是一家普通的俱乐部之间的矛盾，我们说服自己，这家俱乐部实际上还是很棒的。

 

• 为了支持自己的看法，人们对于同样的信息会有完全不同的理解。当决定自己关于一个有争议的问题的看法的时候，我们为了避免冲突，就故意忘记和自己的理论相矛盾的观点，而记住所有支持自己理论的观点。

 

• 即使是在明显不道德的情况下，人们还是会迅速地将自己的价值体系调整到适合自己行为的标准上来。那些偷自己老板东西的人会声称“每个人都是这么干的”，于是他们如果不这么做就会显得落后。或者他们会说“我的报酬太低了，所以我理应在其他方面得到一点额外补偿。”

 

 

只要你去思考，人们通过为自己的过失找借口来解决认知失调的情形还有好多好多。如果你对自己是诚实的，我敢肯定你可以想起很多你自己这么做的情形。我知道我可以想起好几次。

 

意识到这点可以帮助我们避免犯下认知失调的一种后果最为危险的过错：相信自己的谎言。

 

 

 

 

 

参考书目

 

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58, 203-10.