Do the People of NYC have empathy for the Red Kettle Ringers?

Because of the salvation army bell-ringers and the money they collect, the salvation army is able to raise money to buy thousands of people clothes, food, shelter and social services during the holiday season, and also throughout the year. Last year in 2014, Salvation Army’s Red Kettle Campaign collected almost $136 million nationwide. After visiting NYC during the holidays, I saw many Salvation Army volunteers stand out in the cold for hours ringing bells and asking for donations. I wondered how their volunteerism helped increase the amount of money raised, and what they could do to make people want to donate to an organization that assists people in their local communities.

Since the largest amount of Red Kettle volunteers are located in New York City, I will be evaluating the amount of helping, in terms of money donated, in the NYC salvation army. There are many different factors that increase the likelihood that people donate money to the Red Kettle Volunteers, starting with the notion of altruism. Altruism is a form of prosocial behavior which involves the desire to help another person even if it comes with a cost to the helper and doesn’t give them any kind of reward in return. Altruism gives us personal gratification in the sense that it can increase our feelings of self-worth, can increase our approval from people that may be with us, and can relieve our distress. In this case, the distress could be if our friend were to donate money with us around, we may simultaneously feel some discomfort if we don’t also donate some money. Therefore altruism is beneficial here in two ways; for making the giver feel good and increase their positive mood, and for helping a charity.

In order to explain why people may donate, the empathy-altruism hypothesis is one theory. Empathy is a motivator for altruism, because when we feel empathy for another person, we want to help them. On the other hand, when we don’t have empathy for someone, we help only if the rewards outweigh the costs. Upon seeing all the volunteers standing out in the cold and asking for donations, I felt empathy towards them because the weather was extremely cold in the city. Therefore if people take the time to put themselves in the shoes of those volunteers, and try to experience their volunteerism from their eyes, that person will be much more likely to donate to the salvation army. Without empathy for the volunteers or even the homeless and starving people in New York who are in need of the Salvation Army’s support, people will then evaluate the cost and rewards to see if they should help.

This empathy-altruism hypothesis is influenced by the type of attachment style a person has, because a person’s style of attachment is based on the amount of empathy they are able to feel for others. A person with an avoidant attachment style is characterized by a suppression of attachment needs due to failed attempts to be intimate with people in the past. People with this type of attachment style may find it more difficult to engage in long-term and intimate relationships, therefore may have a more difficult time feeling empathy for others. In a study conducted at Westminster college, Prof. Richman studied the likeliness that an avoidantly attached person was willing to help others in the form of donating money. She concluded from her study that avoidantly attached people are less likely to help because of their fear of emotional closeness. Helping another includes having empathy and being close to another, even if only temporarily, which may cause that person to fear closeness. Furthermore, avoidantly attached people help less than securely attached people, when asked to donate to animal and people related charities. The correlational study tested a sample of avoidantly attached people who donated less money to human and animal related charities, but not to charities that did not include some type of emotional closeness (such as charities that help the environment). Therefore by increasing the emotional cost of helping amongst people who are avoidantly attached, decreases their amount of helping. 

In short, the red kettle campaign is a worthy cause in order to raise money to assist the homeless and the hungry, especially during the holiday season. Despite any situational factors the environment may have, if the people of NYC feel empathy for the volunteers ringing the Salvation Army bells, then they will donate to this worthy cause.

By: Maggie Strunk

Richman, Stephanie B. "Avoiding Affection, Avoiding Altruism: Why Is Avoidant Attachment Related to Less Helping?" (n.d.): n. pag. Rpt. in Personality and Individual Differences. Vol. 76. N.p.: Netherlands : Elsevier Science, 2014. 193-97. PsycInfo. Web. 28 Nov. 2015. <http://ezproxy.holycross.edu:5615/ehost/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=66df872f-dc1e-4b90-9222-11593c0ad768%40sessionmgr120&hid=128&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#AN=2015-04217-040&db=psyh>.

Boston Bombing "Family"

On April 15, 2013, Carlos Arredondo was an attendant at the Boston Marathon. He was there with an organization called Military Friends and the Samaritan organization. Arredondo belong to these organizations following the deaths of his sons. One son was killed serving in the military, and the other committed suicide after battling depression. Arredondo was enjoying his day handing out American Flags to spectators when an explosion occurred directly across the street from him. Arredondo jump the fence and ran toward to explosion. What he was able to see through the smoke was devastating. It was among the smoke that he saw Jeff Bauman. Without thinking about the cost of his actions, Arredondo pick Bauman up, carried him to the nearest wheelchair and ran to the hospital.

            Arredondo displayed true altruism.  He was motivated to help even when the costs of help were high. According to Buhrmester, M., Fraser, W., Lanman, J., Whitehouse, H., & Swann, W. (2014), heroes of the Boston Marathon Bombing were motivated to act altruistically because of the idea of fused kinship. Fused kinship or identify fusion suggest that when the terrorist acts happen people sense a strong in-group closeness, kinship, as Americans and this motivate them to act, showing pro-social behavior  (Buhrmester, M., Fraser, W., Lanman, J., Whitehouse, H., & Swann, W.,2014).

In three studies, Buhrmester, M., Fraser, W., Lanman, J., Whitehouse, H., & Swann, W. (2014) looked at the relationship between the Boston Marathon Bombing and identity fusion. In Study 1, they tested the level of empathy toward victims of terrorism and how it affected the perceptions of psychological kinship toward United States citizens. They found that those who perceived other Americans as their “family” exhibited kin-perceptions that was associated with their empathic concerns for the victims. Arredondo said that he saw his sons in Bauman and had to help. Study 2 tested this theory by having participant complete two questionnaires a few days after the Marathon Bombings. This first questionnaire was an “attitudes about their country” questionnaire. After completing this they giving hypothetical situations and reported how they would act. This was followed by the kin-perception rating. The results of this study showed that those who had strongly fused kinship with fellow Americans perceived fellow Americans as kin. Study 3 used those who donated to the Boston One Fund. They had them explain why they supporting the victims using a computer survey. There kin-perception was derived from their responses. “The results from all three studies indicated strongly fused persons reported a willingness to go to extreme lengths to support victims (Study 1), endorsing self-sacrifice over survival to ensure the capture of the terrorists responsible for the bombings (Study 2). In a final study, strongly fused persons were particularly likely to write supportive notes and donate funds to victims (Study 3)” (Buhrmester, M., Fraser, W., Lanman, J., Whitehouse, H., & Swann, W., 2014).

Carol Arredondo was one of many people who experienced this kinship with his fellow American Jeff Bauman. In the moment where Boylston Street in Boston was covered in smoke Arredondo saw Bauman the way he saw his own sons and acted altruistically to save his live, showing this kin-perception in pro-social behavior of the in-group.  Arredondo said “Being in a situation so dramatic on Monday it came to my mind what my son and many of his comrades were going through in Iraq because so many IEDs have taken the lives of our sons and daughters overseas” (Rocheleau, M., 2013). Arredondo sense his kinship and acted as an American not as an individual further displaying identity fusion. Arredondo felt it was his responsibility to help this fellow American, even when the situation was dangerous, he believe he was at the finish line for that reason.

[Mary Perron] 

References 

Buhrmester, M., Fraser, W., Lanman, J., Whitehouse, H., & Swann, W. (2014). When Terror Hits Home: Identity Fused Americans Who Saw Boston Bombing Victims as “Family” Provided Aid.

Rocheleau, M. (2013, April 25). The story of the man in the cowboy hat who helped rescue a Marathon bombing victim. Retrieved November 23, 2015, from Boston.com

If we run at gunmen, they can't hurt us! Right?

By now I’m sure everyone is familiar with front-running presidential candidate Dr. Ben Carson, the neurosurgeon-turned-politician. Since Carson dropped the scalpel and picked up the microphone, his controversial opinions have proven contentious both within the GOP and throughout the presidential race at large. Recently, Carson stated that if he had been present at the Oregon shooting, he would "not just stand there and let him shoot. [He] would say, 'Hey guys, everybody attack him. He may shoot me, but he can't get us all.’"  FBI officials have since clarified that rushing a shooter is an undesirable response to a gun-involved emergency situation, so it might be best to resist the urge.

While Carson’s hypothetical response beautifully mirrors white blood cells combating a foreign bacterial cell, perhaps his biological background has led to misguided expectations of human behavior. As we’ve all learned, bystanders do not often take this kind of bravado initiative in emergency situations, regardless of their moral values. In fact, the larger the group gets, the less likely it becomes that anyone will offer help in an emergency situation. Latané and Darley’s five step process to helping in an emergency tells us that not only does an individual need to recognize an event as an emergency, but they must also know the appropriate response and assume responsibility to act.

In the case of the Oregon shooting to which Carson was referring, it is unlikely that anyone would fail to notice the situation as a dire one. However, many people don’t know the best course of action in a mass shooting scenario. Obviously, Carson’s recommendation falls short at this step, as his suggestion is not an appropriate form of assistance. Even if it were a viable choice of counter-action, it is unlikely that a large group of bystanders would reflexively think to run at the source of death and risk their lives to mitigate the impact. Bystanders often fail to react in situations that would be unlikely to cause them harm, so it is far-fetched to believe that they would voluntarily charge a shooter in such a high-risk situation.

Garcia, Weaver, Darley, and Moskowitz (2002) provide empirical evidence to support the improbability of Carson’s solution to gun violence. The researchers completed a series of studies that involved introducing others into an imaginary emergency over time while simultaneously presenting one individual with help-decisions. Participants were far less likely to exhibit helping behavior if they were cognizant of the fact that other individuals, even ones entirely incapable of helping, were present in the situation. Unfortunately for Dr. Carson and his political campaign, his solution to mass shootings is not only logistically ill-advised but also psychologically unlikely.

[Victoria Mousley]

References

Colvin, J. (2015, October 7). Ben Carson’s advice on mass shooting under scrutiny.

Garcia, M. S., Weaver, K., Darley, M. J., Moskowitz, B. G. (2002). Crowded minds: The implicit bystander effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 843-853.

Relational Aggression in the Media: It Matters, Too

In seventh grade, I watched one of the scariest and most disturbing movies that I had ever seen (or so I thought at the time) during a school-wide assembly.  The movie was "Odd Girl Out," and for anyone who has seen the movie, you can sympathize with me when I say that watching our Spy Kid's idol Alexa Vega cut her hair off was quite traumatizing.  At the time, the movie showing was meant to scare us out of bullying and show the horrible impact that it can have on it's victims.  For the purpose of this blog, however, "Odd Girl Out" provides a great example of what relational aggression is, even if it is a little overdramatic and unrealistic.  

Vanessa was on top of the world at the start of eighth grade.  She had her cool, fun, and popular best friend Stacey by her side, all the coolest clothes, and a cell phone!  She was in the "in crowd" by association, which she was perfectly fine with.  Everything was going great until the jealous and mean girl showed up (bet you could've guessed that one).  Nicky, that jealous and mean girl we all feared in middle school, essentially ousted Vanessa from the "in crowd" in order to find her in and get closer to Stacey.  How did she do that, you ask?  Well, it's as simple as this: Nicky used relational aggression.  Relational aggression is aggression that harms another person through the manipulation of relationships.  Often, relational aggression takes form through gossiping, spreading of rumors, and shunning another person (Aronson et. al, 2013).  In this clip, Nicky used her popularity status in order to ostracize and exploit Vanessa.  She manipulated Vanessa's relationship with her former BFF Stacey by talking behind Vanessa's back and diminished Vanessa's self-esteem, calling her things like "Mayor of Planet Frizz-Ball."  Nicky was a "successful" bully in that she used relational aggression to purposefully harm Vanessa and Vanessa's peer relationships, all while bolstering her own popularity status.

So, how it is that we learn to behave in aggressive ways?  According to Social Learning Theory, people learn social behaviors by observing and imitating others.  Today, the media heavily influences our behavior and the way in which we interact with others.  Research demonstrates that watching violence and aggression in the media, whether it be on TV or while playing video games, increases our aggressive behavior, thoughts and actions (Aaronson et. al, 2013).  We know that when children are exposed to violence frequently, they are more likely to exhibit violent behaviors.  But what about more covert forms of aggression like relational aggression?  Does watching acts of relational aggression, like what is portrayed in "Odd Girl Out," result in the same hostile and aggressive acts?  

To uncover this, Coyne et. al conducted an experiment during which female participants were randomly assigned to watch one of three different movie clips: one involving physical aggression, one involving relational aggression, or one involving no aggression at all.  At the conclusion of watching one of the three clips, participants completed a questionnaire and were told that the experiment was over, but there was another experiment going on next door.  A confederate of the experiment then walked in (perfect timing, right?), posing as the experimenter of the "other study" and encouraged them to join.  After complying, participants then completed timed, advanced puzzle tasks, during which the confederate shouted things like "hurry up" and "you are going to screw things up" in order to frazzle them.  They then completed a reaction time test, during which participants competed against an opponent, who was also a confederate of the study.  When the opponent had a slower reaction time, the participant was to administer a noise blast and choose the loudness level as well as the duration.  Coyne et. al found interesting results, that participants in the physical aggression condition gave significantly louder noise blasts and longer noise blasts to the opponent than those in the non-aggression condition, but that were was no difference in the level and duration of noise blast given between those in the physically aggressive and relationally aggressive conditions.  In addition, participants who viewed both the physical and relational aggression videos gave harsher evaluations of the confederate, post-experiment.  These findings are important and expands the discussion that viewing violence in the media, as  viewing overt forms of aggression, such as violence, and more covert forms such as relational aggression, contributes to more overall aggressive behaviors (Coyne et. al, 2008).  

Coyne's findings demonstrate the power that even watching relational aggression in the media can have on behavior.  Although relational aggression is not as salient to us as more violent and physical forms of aggression, we still pick up on cues and social scripts that influence our behavior.  This may also be why women are more likely to engage in more relationally aggressive acts, as our culture's social scripts tell us that women should not be physically violent (Aaronson et. al, 2008).  Instead, women are portrayed as engaging in "petty" gossiping, which is often seen as "girls just being girls."  These "petty" acts are consistently portrayed within the media, and do have a significant impact on the ways in which we behave.  If we are exposed to relational acts of aggression, even those that are not so obvious, such as when Stacey told Vanessa that the lunch table was too crowded, we pick up on those behaviors and mimic them, as explained by Social Learning Theory.  Sometimes, those can even generalize into other forms of aggression such as physical aggression, as demonstrated by Coyne's experiment.  We do not know where Nicky learned to behave in such a way in "Odd Girl Out," but research suggests that the media is a heavy contributing factor in that process.  She and all of the other bullies in the world have to learn to use relational aggression to exploit others and manipulate their relationships from somewhere.  Therefore, it is important that we pay attention to not only physical forms of aggression in the media, but also more covert forms, as they too have a significant impact on our behavior. 

References:

Aronson, Elliot, et al. Social Psychology. 8^th ed. New York: Pearson Education Limited, 2013. Print.
Coyne, S. M., et. al. (2008). The effects of viewing physical and relational aggression in the media: Evidence 
for a cross-over effect. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(6), 1551-1554. 

Emily Smith

A Heart of Gold; Helping Others

On Friday, I went to the Blaire House to spend time with Alzheimer’s and dementia patients.  This is my SPUD site; I play games, sing in prayer services, and interact with the residents of the Blaire House.  My parents called me that night, and asked why I would choose to spend time with these people, rather than playing with energetic and animated children.  I answered that I loved spending time with the residents because I loved seeing their smiles, and my mother told me that I have a heart of gold.  She made me wonder, did I really volunteer for altruistic reasons, or did I help because I wanted praise or recognition?

With over 1,000 other Holy Cross students volunteering in SPUD, I wonder why we all help others. At Holy Cross, we have a saying, “men and women for and with others.”  Do we help people, whether it is volunteering in SPUD or lending a classmate notes, because we have pure hearts of gold?  Or do we only seek to help others in order to receive a reward such as recognition or praise?  We fall victim to the fundamental attribution error, occurring because we underestimate the situational factors that contribute to helping behaviors and instead assuming altruistic acts are a result of one’s personality.  We automatically attribute altruism to people’s personalities, but in reality, helping behaviors can be caused by something else entirely. The reason we help others isn’t necessarily because we are good and altruistic human beings, nor because we seek to be rewarded. The answer could be simply because we have some spare time.

Darley and Batson demonstrated that extra time significantly impacts helping behaviors in their classic experiment. Seminary students were told to walk across campus in order to give speeches on either jobs of seminary students or the parable of the Good Samaritan.  The researchers controlled how much or little time the students had to walk across campus, in which some students were told to hurry because they were late and others were told that they were in no rush at all.  There was a confederate slumped in a doorway along the path that the students had to pass.  Darley and Batson (1973) found that 63% of students who were not in a rush stopped to help the confederate, whereas only 10% who were in a rush stopped to help.  Additionally, the topic of the speeches had no impact on the results, suggesting that priming had no impact on noticing an event in which help is needed. This study supports the argument that personality traits do not necessarily drive helping behaviors, but rather situational factors, such as the amount of time we have, impact whether we help or not.

Over one third of the students at Holy Cross volunteer in SPUD, tutoring young children, working in soup kitchens, and spending time with the elderly.  Our propensity to help, perhaps, is simply because we have some free time on Fridays to volunteer.  Maybe we volunteer because we want to be rewarded for our seemingly altruistic actions, or maybe we truly do have hearts of gold.  Next time you see someone helping others, avoid the fundamental attribution error and think about the situational factors that contribute to their helping behavior.  Maybe if we all slowed down for a few hours each week, ignoring our busy schedules for a while, we would all be more inclined to help others by volunteering in SPUD or offering to lend some notes to a struggling classmate.

[By Brittney Pond]

References:

Beardman, Stephanie, "Altruism and the Experimental Data on Helping Behavior." Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, 15.4, 547-561. ( http://search.proquest.com/docview/1030334865/2E0704D7E9C44879PQ/1?accountid=11456 ) 

The Road to Aggressive Behavior

So, it’s no news to anyone that we’ve all, at some point in our lives, felt aggression towards a certain individual or group. We’ve all had those days when our frustration gets to us and we behave in such a way that causes harm to another, whether that be physical or psychological. But do we always look back and question the surrounding factors that may have heightened our sensibility to lash out? 

Surely, it’s hard to reflect and make thoughtful attributions. Especially when anger is high, it is easy to completely blame the victim for our aggressive behaviors. In reality, however, there are many different factors that can facilitate our ability to intentionally hurt someone. 

Thinking about aggression, a specific day comes to mind. It was only a few months ago, a hot summer day, that my friend drove us to the mall to pick up some last minute things we needed for our dorms. Merely 48 hours from move-in day, we knew we didn’t want to spend a lot of time on the errand, but two miles away from our exit we hit insane traffic. Stuck bumper-to-bumper, my friend decided to take an early exit because he could not stand the wait. As soon as he tried getting into the exit lane, he was cut off by a huge pickup truck. In response, my friend became dramatically hostile and sped up to cut the same truck off further up, in addition to yelling and honking at him, putting both of our lives at risk.

Looking back at it, the aggression my friend exerted this day could be attributed to a variety of elements. For one, he had been having a very stressful week due to our soon departure for school. We both had a lot to get done, all while feeling a lot of different emotions towards moving away from home and leaving people behind. Additionally, the fact that we were only two miles away from our destination made him feel even more frustrated about getting stuck in traffic. According to the Frustration-Aggression Theory, which states that people’s perceptions that they are prevented from attaining a goal will increase the probability of an aggressive response, if we had not been as close, he would not have reacted to the extent that he did towards the truck driver. 

Many studies aim towards proving this hypothesis. In a study done by Harris (1974), confederates, either male or female, saying “excuse me” or not, and with a high or low status appearance, had to cut off a participant who was in the back of the line or towards the front. Aggressive behavior by the participant was measured by verbal or nonverbal cues aimed at confederates. Results show that while less aggression was aimed at female confederates than at males, those who were cut off closer to the front of the line by someone of “low status” reacted more aggressive than those who were in the back by someone of “high status.” There was stronger tendency of aggression towards confederates of the same sex, and less towards those who said “excuse me.” This study is important in explaining the different factors that play into our aggressive behaviors, especially when one is more frustrated. In this case, frustration produced more readiness to aggressive behavior.

Overall, it is uncommon to make different attributions for each of our aggressive behaviors. My reflection of my personal experience with road rage and this study, however, aim at detecting all of the factors that contribute to intentional aggressiveness. One can benefit from taking a situation and all of its facets because then it is easier to find reason behind our actions. If prior to what might become an intense situation we establish and take control of factors that may make it worse, we can prevent high degrees of aggressive behaviors. 

-Andrea Peraza

Harris, Mary B. "Mediators between Frustration and Aggression in a Field Experiment." Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 10.6 (1974): 561-71. Web.

Our Need To Belong

Why can't we as individuals live on our own? Why do we have to belong in groups? The answer to these two questions is simple, survival. We as a species need to survive and to do that we need to depend on one another for resources. Being in a group can not only provide us benefits to survive but the support we need to carry on living. As human beings want to fit in and be accepted in society. The sense of belonging and being a part of something satisfies the basic human need to form relationships and connections with one another. The need to belong is present in all societies today, people of all cultures are eager to form relationships and bonds with one another.

Belonging in a group allows us to define ourselves and that is what makes the membership of being in a group so important. More than anything the groups we belong in can define us and represent our identity. This concept is prominent in education. For example, the school you go to or the clubs/sports you participate in. Not only do people fear rejection and want to belong we also want to be distinctive. Groups have the ability discern others from different groups. People want to feel that their group is distinctive from other groups. A liberal arts college like Holy Cross can provide its students the feeling of belonging unlike a large state university. Personally, I feel a great sense of belonging and acceptance at Holy Cross. However, even in a small school like Holy Cross people will find the need to be distinctive in what group they are in.

Demarcation can be seen everywhere on campus. Whether in class year, major or even in residence halls the distinction between groups are prominent on campus. We can even see this in fictional movies and novels. Such as, Harry Potter the students that attend Hogwarts are all split into houses: Ravenclaw, Slytherin, Hufflepuff, and Gryffindor. All groups have social roles and implicit/explicit ways to behave. Each house has their own trait or attitude that distinguishes students from each house. For example Ravenclaws are known to be clever and wise whereas Hufflepuffs tend to be kind and caring towards others. Being sorted into each house and taking on each houses identity and social roles affect how people behave. When people get so engrossed into that social role they lose their true identity and that is portrayed in Draco Malfoy. Growing up as a pure blood he was taught to be vain and sly. Later on as the series progresses we can see that he truly does not have the same views as the pure blood and Slytherin group.

Not only can we lose our identity by belonging in a group we can also lose it by not being in a group. Studies show that those in the LGBTQ community have higher rates of mental disorders than homosexuals. A study done by Susan Cochran found that there are higher rates of of major depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts among those of the LGBTQ community. Discrimination may be a contributing factor towards this finding. Cochran wanted to explore whether discrimination affects the mental health of those in the LGBTQ community. They found a strong correlation between the two factors. A survey was done by having 74 LGB and 2,844 heterosexuals rated their experiences with discrimination. They looked a situations to where discrimination might be present as well as feeling so perceived discrimination. They found the LGB participants had a higher rate of perceived discrimination than heterosexuals. The findings don't prove that discrimination causes health defects but it is a stigma that is affecting the LGBTQ community.

The discrimination faced of those in the LBGTQ community represents how the sense of belonging and acceptance is so important to people in our society today. If we belong to a group we have find the sense of acceptance and belonging and if we don't we face many other issues. Either way we as human beings have an instinct to survive an
d to do that we find groups to become members of. We find our identity from groups but we also have to remember not to fall victim to the power that groups can have over us.

Minh Nguyen

DeANGELIS, T. (2002, February 1). New data on lesbian, gay and bisexual mental health. Retrieved November 15, 2015.

Aronson, E., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social psychology (8th ed.). Boston: Pearson.

 

It's The Luck Of Cognitive Dissonance

To study abroad, or to not study abroad; that is the question of all sophomores at this time of the year.  It’s an important decision, and a scary one.  To not know where I was going to be living next year, whether it be in Ireland or here in Worcester, is an intimidating thought.  I’ve always known that I wanted to study abroad, but the hardest decision was deciding whether I should go for a semester or a year.  I went through leaps and bounds to be allowed to go for the semester.  A year was just too long; I wouldn’t be able to run track junior year or see any of my friends or just simply be on the hill.  I was told that there was a small possibility I could go to University College Dublin for the first semester, but it wasn’t set in stone.  I told myself that if that opportunity became a concrete option, then that was what I would do.  If it wasn’t an option, I would just stick it out and go to Trinity College for the year because it was only a year long program.  I told myself that I’d rather go for the year than not go at all.

About a week before the deadline for study abroad, I was told that I definitely had the option to go to University College Dublin for the semester.  You’d think I’d be jumping up and down, excited I was granted the opportunity.  But now, the decision was completely up to me; not the study abroad office, only me.  I was accountable for the choice. I couldn’t blame it on anyone.  I had no external justification, meaning I couldn’t use the fact that I didn’t have a choice as an excuse to my friends or family or even to myself if I ended up making the wrong choice.  Similar to the cognitive dissonance affecting perception study that we looked at in class, having a high-choice compared to a low-choice on a difficult decision causes more of a need to reduce cognitive dissonance.  I found myself going back and forth on my decision multiple times throughout a single day.  Part of the day I could completely picture myself going for the year and then later, I would be completely convinced that the semester was the right choice.  I made pros and cons list, talked to my entire family, friend group, and study abroad ambassadors about it.  Every conversation made me more conflicted.

While this predicament lasted for a month and a half, and being especially difficult during the week before the deadline, we were learning about cognitive dissonance in class, specifically post-decision dissonance.  We learned that once you make a decision, you are going to focus more on the positive aspects of your choice and ignore the negative ones in order to reduce cognitive dissonance.  I couldn’t imagine myself ignoring any of the negative aspects, being that if I go for the year I won’t see my friends, family, or be able to run track; or if I go for the semester, I wouldn’t have the full experience, I wouldn’t be able to get an internship, and I wouldn’t be able to go to Trinity, the more prestigious of the two schools.  Both sets of cons seemed entirely equal.

The day before the deadline, I made the decision to apply to Trinity College for the year as my first choice.  Even though I made it only because I had to make a choice that day and I happened to talk to people right before who convinced me to go to Trinity, I almost immediately felt relieved once I finalized the decision.  I do believe that deep down it was the better choice, even if I did send my application only 5 minutes after deciding.  I think part of the reason why I applied so quickly after I made the final choice was because I knew that post-decision dissonance would occur once I submitted it, and it did.  The finality of my decision and the importance of it increased my need to reduce my cognitive dissonance.  Now, I more intensely believe the pros of my decision and ignore or dismiss the cons.  For example, I realize more now that I will be home for winter and summer break to see friends and family and I can always do track again senior year.  Even though I’ve always been interested in Trinity, hence why it was at least an option, I am now even more interested and more excited about it since I have made my decision.  The post-decision dissonance caused the spreading of my alternatives to occur because I am more confident that Trinity is the right choice and that UCD was the wrong one for me.

To take this a step further, I read a study about post-decision consonance done by Mao Wen and Harmen Oppewal.  The study investigated the effects of post-purchase reinforcement and inconsistent reinforcement on consumer satisfaction and perceived service quality.  Post-purchase reinforcement is when someone is given information that is consistent with their choice.  Choice-inconsistent reinforcement is when someone is given information that goes against their choice.  In the experiment they told a group of college students about university rankings that is consistent with their choice of university and told the other half of the group about university rankings that is inconsistent with their choice of university.  The results were that being reminded of negative aspects of their choice of school does not reduce the students’ consumer satisfaction or perceived service quality.  In fact, there was no effect at all.  Interestingly however, the students who were reminded of positive aspects of their choice of school had an improved consumer satisfaction and perceived service quality.

This study can be related back to my study abroad decision.  I feel relaxed knowing that it is likely, based on the results of this study, that even if I receive negative information on Trinity College or just about going for the year, it is not going to affect me.  But, if I receive positive information about Trinity College or about going for the year, it is only going to improve the confidence in my decision even more.  Maybe it's the luck of the Irish that I was able to make this decision and be happy about it, or maybe it was the luck of cognitive dissonance.

Kelly O'Halloran

Mao, Wen, and Harmen Oppewal. "Did I Choose the Right University? how Post-Purchase Information Affects Cognitive Dissonance, Satisfaction and Perceived Service Quality." Australasian Marketing Journal 18.1 (2010): 28-35. ProQuest.Web. 15 Nov. 2015.