Cognitive dissonance in children: Justification of effort or contrast?

Alessandri, Jérôme; Darcheville, Jean-Claude; Zentall, Thomas R.

doi:10.3758/pbr.15.3.673

Cited by 49 publications

(31 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with this hypothesis, evidence for within-trial contrast of the kind first described by Clement et al (2000) has been found in humans, both children (Alessandri, Darcheville, & Zentall, 2008) and adults (Alessandri, Darcheville, Delevoye-Turrell, & Zentall, 2008; Klein, Bhatt & Zentall, 2005). Thus, it may be that the kind of within-trial contrast effects examined in the present research and earlier studies has generality beyond these experiments with pigeons and may be applicable to a broader range of human social psychological phenomena.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Preference for the outcome that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction?

Singer¹,

Zentall²

2011

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Pigeons prefer a positive discriminative (S+) stimulus that follows a less preferred event (a large number of required responses, a longer delay, or the absence of food) over a different S+ with a similar history of reinforcement that follows a more preferred event (a single required response, no delay, or food). We proposed that this phenomenon results from contrast (referred to as within-trial contrast) between the less preferred initial event and the signal for reinforcement. Delay reduction theory (Fantino, 1969) can account for these results by proposing that the less preferred initial event lengthens the duration of the trial, thereby allowing the S+ stimulus to occur later in the trial and thus become a better predictor of reinforcement. In the present experiments, we further explored this effect. In Experiment 1, we controlled for trial duration by using a fixed ratio response (30 pecks) as one initial event and the absence of pecking for the same duration as the other initial event (0 pecks). The pigeons showed a reliable preference for the positive stimulus that followed the least preferred initial event. In Experiment 2, we controlled for trial duration by using 30 pecks as one initial event and 1 peck followed by a delay that matched the duration of the preceding 30-peck trial. (Group Time Same). For Group Time Different, there was no delay following the 1-peck initial event. For Group Time Same, preference for the initial event negatively predicted the pigeons’ preference for the S+ stimulus that followed, supporting the contrast account. A somewhat greater preference for the discriminative stimulus that followed the least preferred initial event was found for Group Time Different suggesting that in addition to contrast, delay reduction also may play a small role. However, the greater initial-event preference found for Group Time Different suggests that contrast can account for the group difference as well.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 57%

Preference for the outcome that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction?

Singer¹,

Zentall²

2011

Learning and Motivation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Why Clement et al (2000) were able to find the contrast effect with only 20 sessions of training is not clear, but the later research suggests that it may take considerably more training to establish the association. In this regard, it is interesting to note that in the present study, overtraining was not needed to observe the effect with human participants (see also Alessandri, Darcheville, & Zentall, 2008;Klein et al, 2005). At this point, why overtraining should be necessary with pigeons but not with humans is a matter of speculation.…”

Section: Phasementioning

confidence: 80%

Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay

Alessandri

Darcheville

Delevoye-Turrell

et al. 2008

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Instead of deriving satisfaction from the helping per se, the positive emotion in the help condition may be a kind of cognitive dissonance reduction or effort justification (e.g., Alessandri, Darcheville, & Zentall, 2008;Benozio & Diesendruck, 2015) because children actively contributed and invested effort into opening the box to achieve the outcome for the adult. We addressed this question in a second study that additionally provided an opportunity to replicate the effect on children's posture with a new group of subjects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The fulfillment of others’ needs elevates children’s body posture.

Hepach

Vaish

Tomasello

2017

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much is known about young children's helping behavior, but little is known about the underlying motivations and emotions involved. In 2 studies we found that 2-year-old children showed positive emotions of similar magnitude-as measured by changes in their postural elevation using depth sensor imaging technology-after they achieved a goal for themselves and after they helped another person achieve her goal. Conversely, children's posture decreased in elevation when their actions did not result in a positive outcome. These results suggest that for young children, working for themselves and helping others are similarly rewarding.

show abstract

Cognitive dissonance in children: Justification of effort or contrast?

Cited by 49 publications

References 18 publications

Preference for the outcome that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction?

Preference for the outcome that follows a relatively aversive event: Contrast or delay reduction?

Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay

The fulfillment of others’ needs elevates children’s body posture.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About