Methods of Persuasion: How to Use Psychology to Influence Human Behavior by Nick Kolenda Page B

could more easily justify why their behavior was inconsistent. When people were paid $20, there was a specific reason for their inconsistency (i.e., a large reward), and so they didn’t experience as much discomfort because they could easily attribute their inconsistent behavior to the large compensation. However, when people were only paid $1 to lie to the new participant, this small compensation wasn’t substantial enough to justify their inconsistent behavior, and so they experienced stronger discomfort and a stronger need to resolve that discomfort.
    Here’s the main takeaway. Whenever an attitude is inconsistent with our behavior, we feel a state of discomfort known as cognitive dissonance, and we become motivated to resolve it. Further, our motivation to resolve that discomfort becomes stronger when the reason for our inconsistency is weak (e.g., a small reward). If we have a valid reason for holding an inconsistent attitude (e.g., a large reward), we won’t feel as much pressure to change our attitude to match our behavior because we can easily justify our inconsistency.
    This concept stems beyond just rewards; punishments and threats to display certain behavior also won’t influence people to develop a congruent attitude. In another classic experiment, Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) told children that they couldn’t play with a desirable toy. The researchers told some children that there would be a severe punishment if they played with the toy (e.g., “I will be very angry, and I will have to pack my toys and go home”), but other children were told that there would only be a mild punishment (e.g., “I will be annoyed”). Although the children in each condition followed the researcher’s request by not playing with the toy, what do you think happened when those children encountered that same toy at a later occasion when there was no punishment for playing with it?
    You guessed it. Children who received only a mild threat continued to refrain from playing with the toy. Why? The original mild threat was too weak to justify their inconsistent attitude and behavior (i.e., there was a desirable toy in front of them, but they weren’t playing with it). Instead, the children resolved their inconsistent behavior by developing a congruent attitude that they simply didn’t like the toy. Therefore, when presented with that same toy again, they didn’t want to play with it because they genuinely believed that they disliked it. On the other hand, children who received the severe threat could easily attribute their inconsistent behavior (i.e., not playing with the toy) to that large threat. From their perspective, they weren’t playing with the toy because of the severe threat, not because they disliked the toy. Therefore, when those children encountered that same toy again, they were more likely to play with it because they never developed a congruent attitude of disliking the toy.
    Researchers often refer to that phenomenon as “insufficient justification” (Shultz & Lepper, 1996). In order for people to develop a congruent attitude—whether it’s from their body language or behavior—they must believe that they are freely choosing their behavior, rather than being guided by some large external reward or threat. Too much justification won’t lead to cognitive dissonance because people could easily attribute their inconsistent attitude and behavior to that justification. Remember this concept because it’ll come back into play when we discuss incentives in Chapter 12.
    PERSUASION STRATEGY: CREATE BEHAVIORAL CONSISTENCY
    The main persuasion strategy is very simple (yet extremely powerful). If you want to persuade people to develop a certain attitude, you should get them to display behavior that’s consistent with the attitude that you’re trying to elicit. When they display that particular behavior, they’re more likely to develop an attitude that’s congruent with their behavior. This section will explain a