Being Together in a Situation of Induced Hypocrisy

Induced hypocrisy is considered as a new dissonance paradigm, in which two factors (normative commitment and mindfulness of past transgressions), are combined. The inconsistency between ‘what I am preaching’ and ‘what I have done’ is reduced via behavioral change in line with the prior preach. In this study, we compared two different operationalizations of commitment factor. In a paradigmatic condition, every participant for herself wrote a pro-normative advocacy. In an collective hypocrisy condition, the normative advocacy was elaborated collectively. Afterwards, each participant was asked to remind her own transgressions. The results suggesting that collective speech is more effective to promote behavioral change than individual speech are discussed especially in light of normative focus theory. Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 13, No. 12) (Fointiat) 146 COGNITIVE DISSONANCE No doubt, cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) is a pivotal theory in social psychology (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 1999, for a review). Cognitive dissonance is defined as an aversive state of psychological tension –called dissonancearoused when an individual holds two cognitions that are mutually inconsistent. From Festinger’s perspective (1957), dissonance arousal motivates the individual to reduce dissonance, by changing or modifying one or both of the inconsistent cognitions. This crucial hypothesis has been tested in several paradigms: the freechoice paradigm (Brehm, 1956), the effort-justification paradigm (Aronson & Mills, 1959), the belief-disconfirmation paradigm (Festinger, Riecken & Schachter, 1956) and the forcedcompliance paradigm (Festinger & Carlsmith ,1959). In forced compliance paradigm, the individual freely performs a counter-attitudinal behavior (arguing a position I don’t believe in) or a counter-motivational behavior (performing a problematic behavior). In such a situation, dissonance can be reduced by modifying private attitude to correspond more closely to what was argued (e.g. attitude change) or by changing the subsequent behavior in line with the previous problematic behavior (e.g. behavioral change), even if this mode of dissonance reduction remains the least explored, maybe because of the difficulty in observing it. Interestingly, most paradigms of dissonance have emerged in the 50’s (free-choice paradigm, Brehm, 1956; effort-justification paradigm, Aronson & Mills, 1959; belief-disconfirmation paradigm, Festinger, Riecken & Schachter, 1956) and for four decades, any new paradigm has been explored. In 1991, two paradigms appeared simultaneously in the literature: the doubleforced compliance paradigm (Joule, 1991) and the induced hypocrisy paradigm (Aronson et al., 1991). The former defends a comeback to the roots of the original theory; the latter is in attendance on one of the most famous alternate interpretations of dissonance effects: the selfconsistency theory (Aronson, 1968 ; Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992). Inducing Hypocrisy to Promote Behavioral Change Hypocrisy paradigm is based upon a very simple principle: saying one thing and doing another thing. The saliency of the discrepancy between what is preaching and what was done (in a recent past) arouses a feeling of hypocrisy (i.e. dissonance). Changing the subsequent behavior into line with the normative speech is the easiest way to reduce the uncomfortable state of hypocrisy. The procedure of induction of hypocrisy involves the combination of two factors. The first one (commitment) consists in leading the participants to advocate the importance of conducting a pro-social behavior. Commitment factor could be operationalized via videotaping speeches, writing essays or signing petitions. On the other hand, the second factor (mindfulness) is usually operationalized by asking participants to think about times when he/she did not behave in line with the advocated standards. The awareness of past failures can also be operationalized by asking participants to respond to a questionnaire in which each item illustrates a plausible transgression. Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 13, No. 12) (Fointiat) 147 A Set of Three Experiments At the beginning of the 90’s, a series of three experiments (Aronson et al., 1991, Dickerson et al., 1992, Stone et al., 1994) sharing the same between subjects experimental design 2 (public commitment : pro-attitudinal speech versus no speech) x 2 ( mindfulness : salience of past transgressions versus no salience) was realized. Only one of the four experimental conditions can arouse dissonance and subsequently lead its reduction: the condition that combines commitment and mindfulness. For example, Aronson et al. (1991) and Stone et al. (1994) induced participants to feel hypocritical about their condom use. In the crucial hypocrisy condition, participants videotaped speeches advocating the systematic use of condoms (commitment factor). After this advocacy, they were asked to list times in their own past when they had failed to practice safe sex (mindfulness factor). The induction of hypocrisy in the Dickerson et al. ‘s experiment (1992) was quite different. Participants were recruited at the university swimming-pool. In the paradigmatic condition they were led to sign a flyer promoting water conservation (commitment factor); afterwards, they were led to fulfil a questionnaire in which each question illustrated a plausible transgression (mindfulness factor). In these three basic experiments, dissonance was predicted in the condition combining the commitment and the mindfulness factors; in reverse, dissonance was not predicted in the conditions in which either factor (commitment or mindfulness) was absent. The results supported the prediction: Participants in the hypocrisy conditions showed not only an increase in intentions to use condoms (Aronson et al., 1991), but also actually bought more condoms (Stone et al., 1994) than participants in the other three experimental conditions. Furthermore, participants made hypocritical about their water use, subsequently took shorter showers than control participants (Dickerson et al., 1992). Self-Consistency Interpretation From the self-consistency perspective (Aronson, 1968 ; Thibodeau & Aronson, 1992), most persons have a positive self-concept. To put it in another words, people are inclined to view themselves as competent, moral, rationale and so on. Dissonance is aroused when persons behave in a way that they view as incompetent, immoral or non rationale. Hence, dissonance comes from the inconsistency between the person self-concept as a moral person and the person’s behavior of doing something which is immoral. In other words, any violation of an important element of the self-concept leads to dissonance arousal and subsequently to dissonance reduction. The aim of the process of reduction is the restoration of the global self-concept. To put it in other words, «we believe that making the link between an attitude and a behavior (or more specifically, between the self-concept and behavior) accessible is a necessary component of the hypocrisy effect. In our view, it is the motivation that results from this connection that causes subjects to take behavioral action» (Stone et al., 1994). Taken together, research conducted in the hypocrisy paradigm relate to attitudes which are «high in social desirability» (Stone et al., 1997) : for instance, AIDS prevention (Aronson et al., 1991, Stone et al., 1994), promoting water conservation (Dickerson et al., 1992), recycling to preserve Current Research in Social Psychology (Vol. 13, No. 12) (Fointiat) 148 natural resources (Fried & Aronson, 1995, Fried, 1998), donation for homeless people (Stone et al., 1997), promoting road safety (Fointiat, 2004, Fointiat & Grosbras, 2007), generosity (McKimmie et al., 2003). From our point of view, the aim of the commitment factor is to anchor the normative dimension of the preach. In the first articles, commitment factor was described as pro-attitudinal speeches (Aronson et al., 1991 ; Dickerson et al., 1992 ; Stone et al., 1994 ; Fried & Aronson, 1995 ; Aronson, 1999). Few years later, “pro-attitudinal advocacy” becomes “prosocial advocacy” (Stone et al., 1997) or “normative advocacy” (Fointiat, 2004). The sliding from pro-attitudinal speech (that is, conform to the personal belief) to pro-normative speech (that is, socially approved) have to be emphasized.