you need to reply to 2 of the classme posts using a referance page.
Here are the posts:
1 day agoStacey S
Wk 6: Attitude Change
COLLAPSE
WK 6: Discussion 2
Julie is in a quandary. In the class scenario, the character Julie wants to live a healthy lifestyle and run for fitness. However, she smokes cigarettes, and her lung capacity is compromised as a result. This quandary or conflict between her desire to live a healthy lifestyle and her behavior of smoking cigarettes is what social psychologists refer to as cognitive dissonance (Aronson et al., 2019; Levy et al., 2018; PsychandSound, 2014). Cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we experience when we are torn between opposing attitudes and behavior.
Cognitive dissonance theory was coined by Festinger in the 1950s, explaining how the intercorrelation between motivation, cognition, and emotion (Levy et al., 2018). Festinger’s theory was broad and included simple inconsistencies that cause mental distress. Levy et al. (2018) conducted a study to test simple inconsistencies. This research juxtaposed cognitive dissonance studies predicated on more complex hypotheses of inconsistent behavior and attitudes. To test their hypothesis, Levy et al. (2018) constructed sentences where a word at the end was inconsistent with the rest of the sentence, confounding readers. The research results were statistically significant, showing discomfort with a simple inconsistency such as words not matching the sentence’s meaning. In Julie’s case, she cannot achieve her manageable running routine, which she could have easily done years before smoking.
When we experience mental discomfort or cognitive dissonance, the natural reaction is to reduce the effects. There are several ways in which Julie might seek to minimize her mental discomfort. First, she may try to change her attitude or feeling toward jogging or smoking (Aronson et al., 2019; PsychandSound, 2014). Our attitudes are evaluations or our internal judgments of people, ideas, mores, and situations and directly affect our behavior (Aronson et al., 2019). If Julie changed her attitude about jogging, convincing herself that she was doing it for the wardrobe would lessen her cognitive dissonance.
More specifically, when Julie weighs the pros and cons of running, including the sports gear she purchased for this workout, she bases her attitude on cognitions or cognitively based attitudes (Aronson et al., 2019). Cognitively based attitudes, as opposed to behaviorally based attitudes, are based on thoughts. As the name implies, behavioral attitudes are based on behaviors. Julie’s behavior of smoking cigarettes reinforces that to Julie that she likes smoking. Smoking is habitual, a repetitive behavior, that Julie does.
Julie may not even have realized that her attitude about smoking until she participated in the behavior on a repeated and consistent basis. When people realize that they do a behavior repeatedly and then develop an attitude toward the behavior, social psychologists call this self-perception theory (Aronson et al., 2019). Our perception of ourselves changes as we observe ourselves doing the behavior. For example, Julie’s attitude about smoking may be influenced by the self-perception theory. Consider that Julie may not have even considered how she felt about smoking until she observed herself in the act of smoking repeatedly. She then may logically conclude that she enjoys smoking. Given that her self-concept may be involved with this habitual behavior, it is likely that Julie will change her attitude toward running to reduce cognitive dissonance before changing her smoking behavior.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., Alert, R. M., & Sommers, S. R. (Eds.). (2019). Social Psychology (10th ed.). Pearson.
Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95-108. https://ezp.waldenulibrary.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=pdh&AN=2017-43587-001&site=eds-live&scope=site
PsychandSound. (2014, August 30). Simply psychology: Cognitive dissonance [Video file]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2q1dv4a56e8
1 day agoEmilee
Main Question Post
COLLAPSE
When considering Julie’s dilemma, it is evident that she is experiencing cognitive dissonance in her inconsistent attitudes toward smoking and being able to run to achieve her fitness goals. When Julie discovered that her smoking behaviors had impeded her ability to run, the realization that smoking and running are discordant disconfirmed her identity as a runner who enjoys smoking cigarettes and violated the expectation that she could successfully engage in both behaviors. Levy, Harmon-Jones, and Harmon-Jones (2018) explain that an inconsistency or non-fitting cognitive relations produce affective psychological discomfort and motivational state of dissonance. Julie may weigh the risks and rewards and decide that smoking is more valuable to becoming fit, or that becoming fit is more valuable than her smoking habit. In addition to Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, I connect Rosenberg’s affective-cognitive consistency theory to Julie’s dilemma. Essentially, this theory examines the relationship between individuals’ attitudes and their beliefs. Tuncalp and Sheth (1975) state that Rosenberg’s model of attitudes theorizes that two cognitive factors determine an individual’s positive or negative feelings toward a concept or object, which include the perceived instrumental efficacy of a concept or object to obstruct or reach a set of esteemed objectives as well as the comparative importance of the valued objectives to the individual. Julie’s realization that smoking is hindering her ability to reach her fitness goals is presumably new information that will change the cognitive component of her attitude, which will likely cause Julie to change her attitudes toward smoking.
I believe that the learning theory of operant conditioning is also pertinent to Julie’s dilemma. According to Aronson et al. (2019), this phenomenon comprises behaviors that individuals freely choose to engage in, which either increase or decrease in frequency depending on subsequent rewards or punishment. Julie’s experience of feeling out of breath, dizzy, nauseous, and as if her lungs were one fire after running just a block is representative of a punishment that is resultant of smoking. If she continues to smoke, this punishment will cause the frequency of her behavior (smoking) to decrease. Conversely, in the case of reactance theory, Julie’s freedom to smoke is being threatened by her inability to achieve fitness goals, which has evidently aroused an unpleasant state of resistance and is likely provoke her to keep smoking to reduce the reactance Aronson et al. (2019). In other words, Julie would keep smoking to restore her sense of personal freedom. Reactance, an unpleasant motivational arousal, can influence cognitive, affective, and behavioral changes. However, Steindl et al. (2015) reveals that the amount of reactance an individual experiences depends on the importance of the freely chosen behavior that is being threatened as well as the magnitude of the threat that is perceived by the individual. Contingent upon the type of threat, different processes and reactance responses may be involved. For instance, the realization that smoking had adversely impacted Julie’s ability to run more than a black is considered a legitimate restriction. While a legitimate restriction is a type of threat that is unexpected but appropriate, illegitimate restrictions are unexpected and inappropriate, which tend to encompass an affective process that precedes to immediate arousal (Steindl et al., 2015). It seemed that although Julie’s realization was unexpected, the fact that smoking hinders the ability of individuals to run far distances is appropriate and logical. This may allow Julie to reflect upon the situation, contemplating the morality of her harmful behavior.
References
Aronson, E., Wilson, T., Akert, R., & Sommers, S. (Eds.). (2019). Social psychology (10th ed.). Pearson.
Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? Motivation Science, 4(2), 95-108. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000079
Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psychological reactance: New developments and findings. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie, 223(4), 205-214. doi:10.1027/2151-2604/a000222
Tuncalp, S., & Sheth, J. N. (1975). Prediction of attitudes: A comparative study of the rosenberg, fishbein and sheth models. In S. Tuncalp, & J. N. Sheth, NA – Advances in consumer research (Vol. 2, pp. 389-404). Association for Consumer Research. Retrieved from https://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/5674/volumes/v02/NA-02

The post you need to reply to 2 of the classme posts using a referance page.
Here are the appeared first on Essaybrook.