Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 1 Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance-Evoking Behavior Erica Behrens Winona State University Abstract This study examines the effects of self-consciousness and cognitive dissonance in college students based on their performance of a dissonance-evoking behavior. The hypothesis for which my study is founded is that subjects who are internally primed to focus on their private self-consciousness will be less judgmental about a dissonance-evoking and knowingly wrong behavior than subjects who are externally primed to focus on their public self consciousness. Subjects participated in a within subjects factorial design in which they completed an initial writing task, read a description of a dissonance-evoking behavior, and rated statements about the behavior using a scale measuring attitude and dissonance. Results were analyzed using a 2x2 factorial ANOVA and it was determined that subjects that have an internal focus on their private self-consciousness were less judgmental about the described behavior than subjects with an external focus on their public self-consciousness who were more judgmental. In addition, students that had not performed the dissonance-evoking behavior were more judgmental about it than students who had performed the behavior. Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance-Evoking Behavior This study examines the researcher s interest in how people judge their improper behavior and if that changes when they are focusing on themselves versus focusing outward. Specifically, the researcher was interested in looking at behavior that many college students commit although they know it is wrong. In addition, it was also of interest to the researcher to prime subjects to have each focus (internal and external) and then examine how they rated their attitudes about the described behavior for each focus.
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 2 How people experience and perceive attitudes and behavior has been at the foundation of an extensive amount of previous research in social psychology. In 1958, Fritz Heider founded a theory describing the phenomenon that occurs when trying to decide why people behave the way they do (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1999). Heider stated we can make an internal attribution and decide that the cause of a person s behavior is due to their disposition or character or make an external attribution and decide that the cause of a person s behavior is due to something about the situation or environment. This is the foundation of the attribution theory. Many people explain their own successful performances internally and their failures externally. Ashkanasy and Callois (1987) conducted a study that examined the relationship between locus of control and attributions of academic performance. Subjects were divided into internal and external locus of control groups and it was concluded that internal locus of control subjects would use effort to explain their performance and use luck less as of an explanation than would those in the external locus of control group. Ashkanasy and Callois (1987) noted the theory of locus of control seems to allow people to take credit for successes that are attributed to controllable factors and can explain their own successes using more internal factors. In addition, people can avoid blame for failures if they are attributed to uncontrollable factors and can see the failures of others to be more internal than their own. Again, according to the attribution theory, external attributions are made and when describing our own behavior, such as situational factors; but internal attributions are made when describing the behaviors of others, such their traits and characteristics. Students who cheat will externalize the cause of their behavior because it is less of a threat to a student s ego if they can attribute their wrongdoing to something external rather than internal. Such an external attribution reduces a student s feelings of guilt after cheating and allows them to think of themselves as a good person who cheated because of situational factors (Forsyth, Pope, and McMillan, 1985). Forsyth, Pope, and McMillan (1985) conducted a study predicting that students who cheat will externalize the cause of their behavior and did so by contrasting the causal factors of cheating students and noncheating students. Results of the study suggest that cheating could be reduced by moving cheater s attributions away from external causes toward internal ones. An individual generally should view him- or herself as responsible for their behavior if they feel they have the freedom to choose to perform that behavior. Harris and Harvey (1975)
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 3 conducted a study to examine under what conditions someone is motivated to accept responsibility or not accept responsibility for a behavior by asking college students to decide which of two tasks another person would perform; a pleasant or unpleasant task.. Individuals who discovered that the tasks would be pleasant self-attributed a relatively high amount of choice to themselves in making the decision and individuals who discovered that the task would be unpleasant self-attributed a relatively low amount of choice to themselves in making the decision, only if they had been offered a relatively easy opportunity to find out about what the task consisted of. Harris and Harvey (1975) emphasized that it is ego enhancing for someone to see them self as responsible for good things that happen to other people and it is ego threatening to see oneself as responsible for unpleasant things that happen to others. They offered that self-attributed choice may be a solution to reducing dissonance. One of the most powerful determinants of human behavior is founded on our need to preserve and maintain a favorable and positive view of ourselves. Most of us want to believe that we are good and moral people and do not do wrong and immoral things. Whenever we are confronted with evidence that implies we may have behaved in ways that are wrong or immoral we may experience some discomfort; this feeling is called cognitive dissonance and it motivates our thoughts and behaviors. Leon Festinger was the first to investigate the theory of cognitive dissonance in 1957 (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1999; Psychology World, 1998). The cognitive dissonance theory is founded on three assumptions. We recognize, to some extent, when we act in a way that is inconsistent with our beliefs and attitudes. This recognition then causes dissonance and will motivate us to resolve or reduce it. The greater the dissonance one experiences, the more they will be motivated to resolve it. Dissonance can be resolved by choosing to change your beliefs, your actions, or your perception of your actions (Psychology World, 1998). It is emphasized that cognitive dissonance is extremely powerful when people behave in ways that threaten the favorable image they have of themselves. Cognitive dissonance forces us to confront who we think we are compared to how we have behaved. Scheier and Carver (1980) examined the effects of self-directed attention on dissonance reduction. Two experiments were conducted that investigated the possibility that the mirror made subjects in the present research more aware of their initial attitudes (i.e. induced private self-awareness), whereas the camera made subjects in the previous research more aware of their counterattitudinal behavior (i.e. induced public self-awareness), making both more
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 4 resistant to change. In the second experiment, results were consistent with the first experiment. Subjects in the mirror condition again showed the least amount of attitude change; however, they did reduce dissonance by altering their perceptions of the behavior. Subjects in the camera condition tended to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, but did not distort their behavior. More research conducted by Scheier and Carver will be noted. Self-awareness experiments have been conducted to induce people to focus on themselves (Silvia, 2005). A study conducted by Silvia (2005) asks people to write about ways in which they are different from their friends or other students at school while others in the control condition were to write about irrelevant topics or not do any writing at all. This manipulation was modeled in the present study. Scheier and Carver (1983) also examined private-public distinctions of self-awareness manipulations. They were interested in determining whether directing attention to a particular cognitive element would make it more resistant to change. Results were contrary to results of similar research conducted by Wicklund and Duval (1971) where subjects wrote counter attitudinal essays, either with or without a TV camera focused on them. The camera caused subjects to report attitudes that were more consistent with the essays they wrote. From similar previous research, an assumption is made that the presence of a small mirror enhances one s awareness of the private self, whereas the presence of a TV camera enhances one s awareness of the public self. In Scheier and Carver s study, the presence of a mirror caused subjects to have attitudes that were more resistant to change and eliminated attitude change. The presence of a camera in previous studies caused subjects to be more aware of their public self and attitude change was enhanced. Duval and Wicklund (1971) showed that experimentally induced self-attention produced conformity to the opinion of others. When one s actions are publicly displayed, attention is focused not just upon oneself, but upon their public aspects. Carver and Scheier (1983) sought to validate the Self-Consciousness Scale (SCS) which is designed to measure dispositions to be self-attentive. Female subjects were used and responded to a sentence completion blank either in an empty room or while facing a mirror. They discovered that the mirror does manipulate, and the private subscale of the SCS does measure, self-attention. Those in the mirror condition made more self-focus responses than those in the no-mirror condition. In addition, a second experiment confirmed that replacing the mirror with an audience will then heighten self-attention. Carver and Scheier concluded
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 5 that people experience self-focus as function of a mirror or audience with evoke a high degree of private or public self-consciousness, respectively. In the present study it is predicted that subjects who are internally primed to focus on their private self-consciousness will be less judgmental about a dissonance-evoking and knowingly wrong behavior than subjects who are externally primed to focus on their public self consciousness. Subjects that are internally primed and have performed a dissonanceevoking behavior will experience dissonance and a need to rationalize or justify their actions by being less judgmental about the behavior. Subjects that are externally primed and have not performed a dissonance-evoking behavior will be more judgmental about the behavior. METHODS Participants Forty students participated in this study. They were recruited from Winona State University s campus and were current students of undergraduate psychology courses. Participants received extra credit from their instructors as compensation for participating. Materials Each subject was provided two packets and both were similar in format. The packets were arranged so that the first page consisted of an initial writing task to prime the subjects. The second page of each packet included the description and definition about the dissonanceevoking behavior, either downloading music without licensing rights or copying information from the web for class assignments. The third, and final, page of each packet consisted of the statements that subjects were asked to rate based on their attitudes. Subjects were instructed to provide a thorough response to the initial writing task in four to six sentences. The internal focus packet had subjects answer What is your current emotional state right now and why? and What is your most important belief and what is it so? These questions served the purpose of priming the subject to focus internally and on their private self-consciousness. The external focus packet had subjects respond to Describe a news story from this past week that you have heard or read about and Describe your psychology class in terms of what you have learned or are currently learning. These
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 6 statements served the purpose of priming the subject to focus externally and on their public self-consciousness. Subjects then read a description of a dissonance-evoking behavior, either downloading music without licensing rights or copying information from the web for class assignments. The dissonance-evoking behaviors described represented behaviors that many college students do or have done. In addition, both behaviors do not have immediate consequences for students. Only one of the behaviors was described in each packet. Subjects were also asked to rate statements based on their attitudes about the described behavior. Statements included This behavior is wrong, I believe this behavior should be illegal, and People should be punished for this behavior. Other statements included This behavior is moral, This behavior doesn t hurt anybody, and This behavior is not wrong. These statements examined the subject s attitudes about the dissonance-evoking behavior they read about on the previous page of the packet. Subjects were asked to rate the statements based on a six-point scale with the lowest point representing absolutely not and the highest representing absolutely. These statements provided a measure of attitude and dissonance in subjects. Procedure The study was run on the Winona State University campus. Subjects signed up to participate in groups of three or less. Before subjects arrived, the researcher placed two packets on each of the three tables at which subjects could sit. On each table was placed an internal, private self-consciousness priming packet as well as an external, public selfconsciousness priming packet. Both were placed on the table next to each other face down. The order was counter-balanced; subjects either completed the internal focus packet first of the external focus packet first. Researchers explained to subjects that they were to turn over the packet placed on the right on the table to complete first. They were instructed to answer or respond to the statements or questions on the first page of the packet and then read about the described behavior on the second page. For the third page, subjects were instructed to rate their attitudes about the behavior based on the provided scale. Upon completing the first packet, subjects were told to place it face down on the table and push it off to their right hand side. Immediately after, subjects were instructed to turn over the packet on the left side of the table and complete the second packet. Upon completion, subjects were instructed to place it
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 7 face down on the table and push it off to their left hand side. Subjects were asked to remain seated until all subjects had finished both packets. Subjects were then debriefed, thanked, and dismissed. RESULTS A 2x2 ANOVA examined the effects of focus (internal or external) and performance of a dissonance-evoking behavior on attitude and dissonance. For each behavior, all statements were combined to a single scale of attitude towards the behavior. Applicable items were reverse-coded so higher numbers indicated attitudes that are more judgmental. A Cronbach s Alpha reliability analysis determined that the statements measuring the subjects dissonance were similar and reliable (α =0.88). There was no order effect F (1, 76)=0.64, p=0.43. It did not matter which priming condition the subject completed first and which they completed second. Therefore, this variable was not included in further analysis. Means and standard deviations for each condition can be seen in Table 1. There was no significant interaction between focus (internal or external) and having performed the behavior, F(1, 72)=0.36, p = 0.55. However, there was a marginal main effect for the focus of the subject, either internal or external, F(1,72)=3.31, p=0.07. Means indicate that subjects internally focused rated statements lower, indicating a less judgmental attitude about the behavior (M=3.56, SD=1.19). Subjects externally focused rated statements higher, indicating amore judgmental attitude about the behavior (M=4.55, SD=0.93). There was also a main effect for whether the subject had performed the behavior, F(1,72)=14.90, p<.001. Means indicate that subjects who had performed the described behaviors rated statements lower and were less judgmental (M=3.53, SD=1.14) than subjects who had not performed the behaviors rated statements higher and were more judgmental (M=4.78, SD=0.76). Students that had not performed the dissonance-evoking behavior were more judgmental about the behavior than students who had performed the behavior, regardless if they were focused internally or externally. However, students that had not performed the behavior and were focused externally rated statements the highest, indicating attitudes that were the most judgmental. Contrary, students that had performed the behavior and were focused internally rated statements the lowest, indicating the least judgmental attitudes about the behavior. Results can be seen in Figure 1.
Rating Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 8 Table 1. Mean Ratings of Attitudes about the Dissonance-Evoking Behavior. Focus/Prime M SD Internal Yes 3.34 1.14 No 4.52 0.96 External Yes 3.98 1.06 No 4.85 0.70 Total No 4.78 0.76 Yes 3.53 1.14 Figure 1. Mean scores of statements justifying dissonance-evoking behavior. 6 5 4 3 2 Committed the behavior Yes No 1 0 Internal Focus External
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 9 DISCUSSION The hypothesis was that subjects who are internally primed to focus on their private self-consciousness will be more judgmental about a dissonance-evoking behavior than subjects who are externally primed to focus on their public self-consciousness. The results support the hypothesis. Subjects that have an internal focus were less judgmental about the described behavior than subjects with an external focus who were more judgmental about the behavior. Variables in this study included whether the subject had committed the described behavior and the focus of the subject, either internal or external. The variable of whether the subject had committed the behavior tell us that subjects who had not committed the behavior were more judgmental about the behavior and rated statements higher. Also, it is more likely that their attitudes about the behavior were directed towards people who have committed the described behavior, such that it really is wrong and people shouldn t do it. The variable of the focus of the subject, either internal or external, tells us that subjects focused internally and had committed the behavior were the least judgmental about it and rated statements lower. This may be because individuals who have committed the behavior and were focused on themselves felt the need to justify the behavior and may react that the behavior really isn t that bad nor is it that wrong. In addition, subjects focused externally and had not committed the behavior were the most judgmental about the behavior because they were focused outward and not on themselves. These subjects may believe that the behavior really is wrong and immoral. To improve upon this study, the descriptions of the dissonance-evoking behaviors should be alternatively placed in both internal focus and external focus packets. This would be to ensure that subjects are rating the statements according to their attitudes about the described behavior instead of whether they have performed it before. Further dissonance-evoking behaviors could be examined in future research, such as smoking, underage alcohol consumption, or cheating on academic work. In addition, future research could make use of other ways to prime subjects to have an internal or external focus on self-consciousness. Methods used could be writing counterattitudinal essays, using mirrors or video cameras, or providing an audience.
Self-Consciousness and its Effects on Dissonance 10 Implications of this study include understanding behavior that college students may perform although they know the behavior may be wrong, unhealthy, or illegal. By examining the dissonance college students experience after performing one of the above-mentioned behaviors, we can understand how students attribute the causes of their behavior. In addition, it can be examined how students perceive the actions of others who perform these types of behaviors. REFERENCES Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (1999).Self-justification and the need to maintain selfesteem. In Social Psychology (pp. 191-199). New York: Longman. Aronson, E., Wilson, T., & Akert, R. (1999). Social perception: How we come to understand other people. In Social Psychology (pp. 121-144). New York: Longman. Ashkanasy, N., & Gallois, C. (1987) Locus of control and attributions for academic performance of self and others. Australian Journal of Psychology, 39, 293-305. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1978). Self-focusing effects of dispositional selfconsciousness, mirror presence, and audience presence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36(3), 324-332. Forsyth, D., Pope, W., & McMillan, J. (1985) Students reactions after cheating: An attributional analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 10, 72-82. Hall, R. (1998). Cognitive dissonance. Retrieved January 31, 2008, from Psychology World Web Site: http://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/cognitive_dissonance.htm Harris, B., & Harvey, J. (1975) Self-attributed choice as a function of the consequence of a decision. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1013-1019. Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Private and public self-attention, resistance to change, and dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(3), 390-405. Scheier, M., & Carver, C. (1983) Two sides of the self: One for you and one for me. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (pp. 123-157). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates. Silvia, P. (2005). Self-novelty manipulations. Retrieved February 1, 2008, from The University of North Carolina at Greensboro Web Site: http://www.uncg.edu/~p_silvia/tools/selfnovelty.htm