When individuals expend effort for a task that turns out to be boring or trivial they often justify their effort by enhancing the ratings of the task. The present experiment attempted to differentiate between two explanations for this process of effort justification: dissonance and impression management. Subjects completed either a simple (low effort) or difficult (high effort) number-circling task for an experimenter who was either friendly and pleasant (high attractiveness) or rude and unpleasant (low attractiveness). Contrary to impression management theory, and as predicted by cognitive dissonance theory, effort justification occurred only in the presence of the unattractive experimenter.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, C. N. , & Sagatun, I. (1973). An attributional analysis of experimental norms. Sociometry, 136, 127-142.
2.
Aronson, E. , & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 159, 177-181.
3.
Baumeister, R. F. , & Tice, D. M. (1984). Role of self-presentation and choice in cognitive dissonance under forced compliance: Necessary or sufficient causes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 838-852.
4.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
5.
Festinger, L. , & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 158, 203-202 10.
6.
Forsyth, D. R. , Riess, M., & Schlenker, B. R. (1977). Impression management concerns governing reactions to a faulty decision. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 18. 12-22.
7.
Gerard, H. B. , & Mathewson, G. C. (1966). The effects of severity of initiation on liking for a group: A replication. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 278-287.
8.
Linder, D. E. , Cooper, J., & Wickland, R. A. (1968). Pre-exposure persuasion as a result of commitment to pre-exposure effort. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 4, 470-482.
9.
Paulhus, D. (1982). Individual differences, self-presentation and cognitive dissonance: Their concurrent operation in forced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 838-852.
10.
Riordan, C. A. , & Tedeschi, J. T. (1981). Effort justificaiton reflects genuine cognitive change. Replications in Social Psychology, 1, 41-44.
11.
Schaffer, D. R. , & Hendrick, C. (1971). Effects of actual effort and anticipated effort on task enhancement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 435-447.
12.
Schaffer, D. R. , Hendrick, C., Regula, C. R., & Freconna, J. (1973). Interactive effects of ambiguity tolerance and task effort on dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality, 41, 224-233.
13.
Schlenker, B. R. (1975). Liking for a group following an initiation: Impression management or dissonance reduction. Sociometry, 38, 99-118.
14.
Smith, E. E. (1961). The power of dissonance techniques to change attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 629-639.
15.
Tedeschi, J. T. , & Rosenfeld, P. (1981). Impression management and the forced compliance situation. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.), Impression management and social psychological research (pp. 147-179). New York: Academic.
16.
Tedeschi, J. T. , Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle. American Psychologist, 26, 685-695.
17.
Zimbardo, P. G. , Weisenberg, M., Firestone, I., & Levy, B. (1965). Communicator effectiveness in producing public conformity and private attitude change. Journal of Personality, 33, 233-256.
