Festinger and Carlsmith forced compliance 1959
Students paid one dollar to tell another student a dull task was fun later rated the task as more enjoyable than students paid twenty dollars.
Main paper: Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/
The question
Does saying something you do not believe change what you believe, and does the size of the payment matter?
Design: experiment
The researchers set the conditions and compare outcomes between or within groups. Each profile says whether participants were randomly assigned.
Three conditions, with participants placed in conditions by the researchers. Some data were excluded afterward, as the authors report.
Control
- Do the dull tasks
- Not asked to speak
Result reportedRated the tasks as slightly dull
$1
- Do the dull tasks
- Tell the next student they were fun, for $1
Result reportedHigher enjoyment rating
$20
- Do the dull tasks
- Tell the next student they were fun, for $20
Result reportedSimilar to control
Original diagram drawn for this site from the descriptions in the sources. It is a simplified summary, not a figure from the paper.
Procedure
Seventy-one male introductory psychology students at Stanford began the study. They spent an hour on monotonous tasks, such as moving spools and turning pegs. Some were then asked to tell the next participant, a confederate, that the tasks were enjoyable and were paid either $1 or $20 for doing so. A control group was not asked to speak.
Later, an interviewer who did not know the condition asked each student to rate how enjoyable the tasks were on an 11-point scale. Data from 11 students were discarded for reasons such as suspicion, leaving 20 per condition.
Findings
The control group's average rating was slightly below the scale's midpoint. The $1 group rated the tasks significantly more enjoyable than the control group, while the $20 group did not differ from the control group. The two paid groups differed from each other.
The authors checked whether the $1 group had simply given more convincing speeches and found no evidence that they had.
Interpretation
Festinger and Carlsmith argued that students with little reason for their statement felt dissonance between belief and speech, and reduced it by changing their private opinion. A large payment supplied a reason, so less change was needed.
Limits on what it shows
- A small, all-male student sample, with 20 per condition after exclusions.
- Exclusions for suspicion mean the analyzed group is not everyone who took part.
- Other explanations, such as self-presentation or perceived effort, are possible, so the result alone does not show that dissonance is the only mechanism.
Ethics
Participants were deceived about the purpose of the study and the role of the confederate, and they were asked to tell another person something they did not believe. Debriefing was needed to correct the deception.
Replication and reassessment
The payment comparison is evidence to interpret, not a direct reading of a private mental state. Dissonance explains why a small external justification could prompt attitude change. A competing account must explain the same conditions and measured ratings.
Think it through. An original practice question written for this site.
Why might a $20 payment lead to less attitude change than a $1 payment, according to the dissonance account?
Show a way to reason about it
A large payment gives a good external reason for saying the task was fun, so there is little conflict to resolve. A small payment leaves the person without an easy reason, so changing their own view reduces the discomfort.
Nothing you think or select here is recorded.
Textbook connection
OpenStax Psychology 2e, 12.3 Attitudes and Persuasion
Related context on cognitive dissonance. The section does not describe this study.
Sources and access scope
Each label says how much of the source was opened while preparing this profile. An unopened source is listed so the claim can be checked, not because it was read.
- Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203–210. https://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Festinger/Original researchSelected full-text sections inspected
Classics in the History of Psychology reproduction. Participant counts, conditions, ratings and the authors' interpretation come from sections inspected with page tools.
- Spielman, R. M., Jenkins, W. J., & Lovett, M. D. (2020). Psychology 2e. OpenStax. https://openstax.org/books/psychology-2e/pages/12-3-attitudes-and-persuasionTextbook contextSelected textbook passages inspected
Textbook context. The section defines cognitive dissonance and does not describe this study.