1. Participants
 The sample was a convenience sample consisting of 18 students currently attending a private
university. The participants ranged in age from 18-24, and approximately 38% were male
and 62% female. Each participant was randomly assigned to either the experimental or con-
trol group.
Procedure
 A short assessment was given to both the experimental group and the control group before
the experiment began to determine how favorable they would be to a substantial tuition in-
crease. This was used to determine if cognitive dissonance was properly induced.
 The experimental group was instructed to write an essay arguing for an increase of ten thou-
sand dollars in the cost of tuition, conflicting with their currently held beliefs. The control
group was instructed to write an essay arguing either for or against an increase of the same
amount in the cost of tuition. The essays written by the experimental group were evaluated,
based on the quality of the arguments, by two judges to insure cognitive dissonance was
properly induced. Martinie and Milland found this method effective (2010).
 Upon completing the essay, participants were instructed to turn in their essay and take a pa-
per containing the logic problem and instructions to complete it.
 Performance on the logic problem was measured by accuracy on three criteria and the
amount of time taken for the participant to create their solution. The three criteria are: the so-
lution found an adequate replacement, the solution was simple and didn’t require outsourcing
or a new hire, and the solution allows Monica to be join the marketing team without having
to be unnecessarily attached to her secretary job. They were evaluated by two judges and the
scores of the judges were averaged together and combined with the time each participant
took to create their solution to create one score for each participant. The scoring system was
created for high scores to indicate worse performance.
 An independent sample t-test
showed a significance of .678, 95%
CI [-10.6795, 15.9475], and the
standard error was 6.2212, showing
the results are not significant.
 The means for the performance of
the experimental and control groups
were 28.279 and 25.645, respectively,
with a higher score meaning worse
performance. The mean difference
was a score of 2.634.
 The sample size was low, with 10
participants in the experimental group
and 8 in the control group.
 The interrater reliability between the judges on the evaluation of the essays and the logic prob-
lem was .67 and .74, respectively. These reliabilities show accurate measurements of both the
essays and the participants solutions to the logic problems.
 The statistical analysis of the results show no significant difference between the mean perfor-
mance of the experimental group induced with cognitive dissonance and the control group that
was not.
 The conclusions we can draw from this study are limited. Due to numerous limitations conclud-
ing the effect of cognitive dissonance is not possible. The slight difference between the experi-
mental group and the control group could show a possible difference, but more participants are
necessary to draw a significant conclusion.
 Limitations of this study include a limited sample size, homogenous sample, the logic problem
may not be representative of all applications of logic, and cognitive dissonance may not have
been induced. The logic problem may have been specific enough to utilize individual
knowledge in addition to logic. Because of this, performance on this logic problem may not
generalize to all applications of logic. The one paragraph essay may not have been long enough
to properly induce cognitive dissonance. A longer essay could have been more effective.
 Future research should induce cognitive dissonance with a more comprehensive method and
measure performance on a different task that requires logic, preferably with a larger sample.
Future research could also measure the effect of cognitive dissonance on a physical task.
Sousa, F. C., Monteiro, I. P., Walton, A. P., & Pissarra, J. (2014). Adapting creative problem solving to an organ-
izational context: A study of its effectiveness with a student population. Creativity And Innovation Manage-
ment, 23(2), 111-120. doi:10.1111/caim.12070
Dechawatanapaisal, D., & Siengthai, S. (2006). The impact of cognitive dissonance on learning work behav-
ior. Journal Of Workplace Learning, 18(1), 42-54. doi:10.1108/13665620610641300
Martinie, M., Olive, T., & Milland, L. (2010). Cognitive dissonance induced by writing a counterattitudinal es-
say facilitates performance on simple tasks but not on complex tasks that involve working memory. Journal
Of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(4), 587-594. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.018
Special Thanks to Brady Wiggins, Scott Martin, and Jessica Peterson for their help in this study.
The Effect of Cognitive Dissonance on
Solving a Logic Problem
Zac Peterson
Cognitive and emotional dissonance have been linked to several varia-
bles in work place settings. Several of the factors show dissonance asso-
ciated with behaviors that lower productivity, but dissonance has not
been directly related to performance on tasks. This study compared the
average scores of performance on a logic problem resembling a work
place related task between a group exposed to cognitive dissonance and
group that has not been. The sample consisted of 18 students at a private
university. Cognitive dissonance was induced in the experimental group
by the participants writing a counter-attitudinal one paragraph essay ar-
guing for the increase in the cost of tuition. The logic problem partici-
pants completed was evaluated based on the time it took to create a solu-
tion and the accuracy of the solution. The hypothesis was cognitive dis-
sonance causes a decrease in performance on tasks requiring logic, but
was not supported by the results. An independent sample t-test was used
to compare the means between the control group and the experimental
group, which resulted in a significance of .678. Because the results are
not significant and the limitations of this study, conclusions about the ef-
fect of cognitive dissonance can not be drawn.
 Cognitive dissonance occurs when new information conflicts with a
currently held belief (Martinie, Olive, & Milland, 2010).
 Cognitive and emotional dissonance affect multiple work related behav-
iors including the ability to learn new behaviors (Dechawatanapaisal &
Siengthai, 2006).
 Research on the effect of cognitive dissonance on the performance of
tasks is limited, however Martinie and Milland found cognitive disso-
nance was negatively associated with performance on a high load work-
ing memory task and positively related with a simple reaction time task
(2010).
 This study examined the effect of high and low cognitive dissonance on
performance of a logic problem resembling a typical work related task.
 My hypothesis is high cognitive dissonance will cause worse perfor-
mance than low cognitive dissonance.
 Martinie and Milland induced cognitive dissonance in the experimental
group by asking participant’s to write counter-attitudinal essays argu-
ing for a raise in the cost of tuition. This study used the same method.
 The essays will be evaluated to determine if the participant has been ad-
equately induced with cognitive dissonance (2010).
 Cognitive dissonance is the independent variable and performance on
the task is the dependent variable.
 The logic problem performance was measured on was created by Sousa,
Monteiro, Walton, & Pissarra (2014).
INTRODUCTION
METHODS
REFERENCES
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
RESULTS
ABSTRACT
DISCUSSION
RESULTS CONTINUED