Literature DB >> 18567273

Cognitive dissonance in children: justification of effort or contrast?

Jérôme Alessandri1, Jean-Claude Darcheville, Thomas R Zentall.   

Abstract

Justification of effort is a form of cognitive dissonance in which the subjective value of an outcome is directly related to the effort that went into obtaining it. However, it is likely that in social contexts (such as the requirements for joining a group) an inference can be made (perhaps incorrectly) that an outcome that requires greater effort to obtain in fact has greater value. Here we present evidence that a cognitive dissonance effect can be found in children under conditions that offer better control for the social value of the outcome. This effect is quite similar to contrast effects that recently have been studied in animals. We suggest that contrast between the effort required to obtain the outcome and the outcome itself provides a more parsimonious account of this phenomenon and perhaps other related cognitive dissonance phenomena as well. Research will be needed to identify cognitive dissonance processes that are different from contrast effects of this kind.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18567273     DOI: 10.3758/pbr.15.3.673

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  9 in total

1.  "Work ethic" in pigeons: reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward.

Authors:  T S Clement; J R Feltus; D H Kaiser; T R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2000-03

2.  A dependence interpretation of the effects of a severe initiation.

Authors:  J SCHOPLER; N BATESON
Journal:  J Pers       Date:  1962-12

3.  Behavioral contrast.

Authors:  G S REYNOLDS
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1961-01       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons.

Authors:  Kelly A DiGian; Andrea M Friedrich; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-10

5.  Choice and rate of reinforcement.

Authors:  E Fantino
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1969-09       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement.

Authors:  Andrea M Friedrich; Tricia S Clement; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Within-trial contrast: pigeons prefer conditioned reinforcers that follow a relatively more rather than a less aversive event.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall; Rebecca A Singer
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-07       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Contrast and the justification of effort.

Authors:  Emily D Klein; Ramesh S Bhatt; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

9.  Stress, affiliation, and emotional contagion.

Authors:  B B Gump; J A Kulik
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1997-02
  9 in total
  9 in total

1.  Within-trial contrast: when you see it and when you don't.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-02       Impact factor: 1.986

2.  Understanding preference shifts: a review and alternate explanation of within-trial contrast and state-dependent valuation.

Authors:  James N Meindl
Journal:  Behav Anal       Date:  2012

3.  Preference for the Outcome That Follows a Relatively Aversive Event: Contrast or Delay Reduction?

Authors:  Rebecca A Singer; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Motiv       Date:  2011-08-01

4.  Within-trial contrast: The effect of probability of reinforcement in training.

Authors:  Cassandra D Gipson; Holly C Miller; Jérôme J D Alessandri; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-07-14       Impact factor: 1.777

5.  Effects of effort and difficulty on human preference for a stimulus: Investigation of the within-trial contrast.

Authors:  Masashi Tsukamoto; Kenichiro Kohara; Koji Takeuchi
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 1.986

6.  Preference for rewards that follow greater effort and greater delay.

Authors:  Jérôme Alessandri; Jean-Claude Darcheville; Yvonne Delevoye-Turrell; Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 1.986

Review 7.  The Effort Paradox: Effort Is Both Costly and Valued.

Authors:  Michael Inzlicht; Amitai Shenhav; Christopher Y Olivola
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2018-02-21       Impact factor: 20.229

8.  Capuchin monkeys do not show human-like pricing effects.

Authors:  Rhia Catapano; Nicholas Buttrick; Jane Widness; Robin Goldstein; Laurie R Santos
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-12-02

Review 9.  Revisited: Pigeons Have Much Cognitive Behavior in Common With Humans.

Authors:  Thomas R Zentall
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-01-21
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.