The Ash Twins Blog

Jost et al (unpublished) offer the following fascinating review of cognitive dissonance:

Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the very few psychological theories that genuinely aims to integrate social, cognitive, emotional, motivational, and behavioral aspects of human functioning (Festinger, 1957). The core assumption of dissonance theory is that people are motivated to resolve inconsistencies among their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and thus to provide justifications or rationalizations for their experiences. Cognitive dissonance theory is a much-cherished theory in social psychology for a good many reasons (see Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999 for a recent tribute), but chief among these is that it often contradicts the seemingly unassailable assumptions of reinforcement theory, self-interest, rational choice economics, and common sense. In social psychology, perhaps more than in other scientific endeavors, the ability to predict and account for paradoxical effects is a reliable predictor of active research interest and theoretical longevity. Because of the counter-intuitive nature of cognitive dissonance theory, it has also proved more useful than most psychological theories to economists, sociologists, and political scientists seeking to understand behavioral anomalies in each of these fields (e.g., Akerlof & Dickens, 1982; Baron & Kreps, 1999; Liebow, 1967; Montgomery, 1994; Rabin, 1994).

Empirical highlights of cognitive dissonance theory include counter-intuitive demonstrations that people are more likely to rationalize their own hypocrisy when they are paid poorly rather than handsomely for their transgression (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959), work harder and praise a job that pays nothing rather than a job that pays something (Weick, 1964), increase rather than decrease commitment to a group or organization following abuse and maltreatment (Aronson & Mills, 1959; Gerard & Mathewson, 1966), stick longer with a failing course of action than a successful one (Staw, 1976), and profess greater than usual liking for the taste of grasshoppers following compliance with hostile orders to eat them (Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone, & Levy, 1965)… A paradoxical consequence of suffering, according to cognitive dissonance theory, is that people can become more committed to their own state of suffering rather than taking clear and unambiguous action to terminate their pain.

The rest of the paper discusses the related matter of system justification theory. It is available here:

http://gsbapps.stanford.edu/researchpapers/library/rp1671.pdf

From Osofsky et al’s (2005) social-psychological study of executions:

The support teams and the execution teams served markedly different functions. Some of the members of the support team provide emotional support for the families of the victim as they await the execution, relive the trauma of the homicide, and seek relief through a sense of closure. As one officer described it, “They are emotional, but are not jumping for joy. As a family, they hug. The nightmare is finally over—it is a relief.” Still others provide support for the families and relatives of the condemned inmate as they meet with the inmate for the last time. The families’ final parting is especially difficult for the support team. Other members of the support team include counselors who provide psychological support to the condemned inmates. Some members manage relations with the media and other public figures who have interest in particular executions. Spiritual advisors offer prayers of support immediately before the inmate is escorted to the death chamber. As one spiritual advisor explained, “I prayed with him at the end. I read John 3:16 to him, For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.’ He tried to hug me through the bars. Fifteen minutes later he was dead.”

The members of the execution team have the task of carrying out the execution. The strap-down team escorts the inmate to the death chamber. The strap-down is accomplished by highly fractionated, diffused responsibility. Each member straps a particular part of the body: left leg, right leg, left arm and torso, right arm and torso, head, all under close supervision of their leader. They approach their task with a strong sense of technical responsibility. “We each have a small role on the team. We carry out a job for the state. The press and victims are watching. We have a certain duty and do it as efficiently as we can.” The emergency medical technicians get the lethal drugs from the pharmacy, insert the intravenous lines for the syringes into the inmate’s veins, and attach the electrocardiogram electrodes to monitor the inmate’s heart rate. The executioner administers three different drugs: sodium pentothal to put the inmate to sleep to suppress death spasms, pancuronium bromide to stop respirations and potassium chloride to stop the heart beat. The individual who administers the lethal injection pushes the plungers one by one until each drug enters the blood stream. Death comes with striking speed. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences among the three groups of participants on any of the sociodemographic characteristics we collected.

You can read the rest of the paper here:

http://baw2008.altervista.org/DOCUMENTS/articoli%20baw%202008/Zimbardo%202005.pdf