the origins of cognitive dissonance: evidence from children and monkeys
DESCRIPTION
The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys. Emily Slezak Morgan Wilbanks. Introduction. Cognitive Dissonance: “a psychological state in which an individual’s cognitions – beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors – are at odds” Interpreted as a negative feeling - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
E M I LY S L E Z A K M O R G A N W I L B A N K S
THE ORIGINS OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE:
EVIDENCE FROM CHILDREN AND MONKEYS
![Page 2: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
INTRODUCTION
• Cognitive Dissonance:• “a psychological state in which an individual’s
cognitions – beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors – are at odds”• Interpreted as a negative feeling• Motivated to resolve the contradiction
• Still up for debate: developmental or evolutionary basis?
![Page 3: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
PAST STUDIES
• Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) - Children • Lewis (1964) - Rats• Friedrich & Zentall (2004) - Birds
![Page 4: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
BASIC METHODS
• Combined Comparative-Developmental Approach• Free-Choice Paradigm• Re-rating vs. Two Phase
• Hypothesis:• If dissonance is experienced in phase one, then
attitude towards unchosen item will change in phase two
![Page 5: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
CHILD STUDY METHODS• Subjects:• Thirty 4-year-olds• Tested in pre-schools or in the laboratory
• Procedure• Assessed child’s preference for stickers with the
smiley-face rating scale • Children competency for scale tested (See any
issues with this scale?)
![Page 6: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
CHILD STUDY METHODS
• Procedure continued• Experimenter identified at least two triads of
stickers the child liked equally• Each sticker within a triad was labeled A, B, or C• Phase one: choice between A & B• Phase two: choice between unchosen option
in phase one and C• Choice vs. No choice conditions• Using at least two triads per child, the data was
averaged across trials
![Page 7: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
CAPUCHIN STUDY METHODS• Subjects: • Six Capuchin Monkeys• Four adults and two adolescents (one subject
group vs. two?)• Procedure• Experimenter determined differential
preference for M&Ms based on retrieval time• Tested 20 times in two experimental sessions
![Page 8: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
CAPUCHIN STUDY METHODS
• Procedure continued• Equally preferred triads of M&M colors were
identified• Choice and no choice conditions
![Page 9: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
RESULTS
• Children Study• “Children in the choice condition were more likely
to prefer option C (63.0%) than were children in the no-choice condition (47.2%)”• evidence of resolving cognitive dissonance
• Capuchin Study• “The monkeys chose option C more in the choice
condition (60.0%) than in the no-choice condition (38.3%)”
• The monkeys chose the unreceived option over the novel option more often in the no-choice condition
![Page 10: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
DISCUSSION • Evidence for Cognitive Dissonance in human
adults and children as well as non-human primates• Current study isolates reason for attitude
change to be attributed to cognitive dissonance• The only difference being an intentional choice
• Evidence for innate over developmental• Since 4-year-olds have some experience with
cognitive dissonance, further studies with infants would be preferred
![Page 12: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
DISCUSSION
• Core-knowledge mechanism • Possibly core aspects of cognition give rise to
cognitive dissonance• Automatic response • Either mechanistically simpler than thought or
assume less cognitively sophisticated individuals (children and monkeys) are more complex
![Page 13: The Origins of Cognitive Dissonance: Evidence From Children and Monkeys](https://reader033.vdocuments.net/reader033/viewer/2022051219/568164aa550346895dd6ab31/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
EGAN, BLOOM, SANTOS (2010)• Follow-up Study• Introduction of blind choice to eliminate prior
preferences too fine-grained for measurement • Results• Both children and monkeys chose the third
object, consistent with the original study• Indicating that they devalued the rejected object• Pattern did not occur when the subjects did not
have a choice• Study gives evidence that there was not a prior
preference, but that the choice itself induced preference