A ‘like’ is not a donation:

Converting acts of token support on social media through

cognitive dissonance

A proposal for funding from

Unicef Australia

The proposal is seeking funding from Unicef Australia in order

to conduct research into Slacktivist behaviors on social

media, specifically Facebook. The research aims to understand

the behavior, attitudes, and social norms surrounding

slacktivism. It also aims to develop a cognitive dissonance

based intervention which can be administered online via

Facebook to convert current slacktivists into active donors.

We aim to do this by generating a sense of hypocrisy in

slacktivists by drawing their attention to their conflicting

attitudes towards supporting Unicef and past lack of action in

doing so meaningfully.

Debra Lindsay

42613035

Word count 1 (3,449)

Word count 2 (4,541)

Project Background

The rise of social media websites like Facebook have put

charity organisations in the daily line of sight of people on

the internet. But not all of this engagement is beneficial to

the charity. A new phrase – Slacktivism – has joined our

vocabulary. It represents a low-cost activity via social media

without making the effort to engage in meaningful actions such

as donating or volunteering. A like on Facebook, a retweet on

Twitter, or a shared YouTube video are examples of slacktivist

behavior.

Despite the growing numbers of people who are using social

media (in February 2014 there were over 1.23 billion monthly

Facebook users (Ross, 2014)), there has been little research

into how engaging with charities via social networks such as

Facebook impact actual meaningful engagement. There is a

current trend for charities to develop viral campaigns in the

hope they will result in tangible dollars in the bank. The

research that has been done suggests otherwise – that

encouraging supporters to like, tweet, or share a message does

not convert to the meaningful resources charities require to

meet their fundraising goals.

A recent study found that token acts of support for

causes, including displaying a lapel pin or signing a public

petition, results in less meaningful support than if support

is given privately (Kristofferson, White, & Peloza, 2013). The

researchers suggested that this effect was due to impression

management motivations. Social media allows people to present

themselves in a way that is favourable to their social

networks (Rosenberg & Egbert, 2011). Given that many people

perceive being a generous, charitable person as a positive

thing (McKimmie et al., 2003) it is understandable that they

would display slacktivist behavior to boost this positive

image. By sharing messages about charities on their Facebook

pages people are able to display an image of themselves as

charitable with less effort than if they actually donated to

the charity in private.

An extensive analysis of the Save Darfur Facebook campaign

(Lewis, Gray, & Meierhenrich, 2014) had even more concerning

results. The campaign gained 1,174,612 members in the first

two years it ran, however only 11,746 (1%) members ever

donated to the cause. This is enough cause for concern,

however an argument that is often presented for viral social

media marketing is that simply spreading the message further

is beneficial as more people means more donations. Yet in the

Save Dafur campaign, members who were recruited to the cause

(through viral social media) were less likely to donate

compared to those who joined independently. This suggests that

spreading a message through social networks is not efficacious

in creating tangible fundraising outcomes.

Another study suggests that low cost prosocial acts can

harm future prosocial acts through a mechanism called moral

balancing (Krishna, 2011). This study was particularly

interested in cause marketing (e.g. buying Pink labelled

products to support breast cancer research) and found that if

consumers felt they had contributed to a cause by purchasing a

charity related product they were less likely to make an

active donation at later time. These findings are relevant to

concerns about slacktivism, as ‘liking’ a Facebook page is a

similar low-cost support activity which is likely to affect

future donations not just to your charity but to other

charities as well. Lee and Hsieh, 2013 also found that

participants engaged in moral balancing when signing online

petitions. Participants saw this act as an entry in their good

deed balance sheet and were less likely to donate to the cause

at a later stage. The good news is the researchers were able

to reverse the effect when they encouraged participants to be

consistent in their actions through the use of cognitive

dissonance.

Cognitive dissonance based interventions have been used to

change both attitudes and behaviors surrounding strongly held

beliefs in several sectors (e.g. thin idealisation (Halliwell

& Diedrichs, 2014; Stice, Butryn, Rohde, Shawa, & Marti,

2013), discriminative views (Ciao & Latner, 2011; Gringart &

Helmes, 2008), factory farming (Prunty & Apple, 2013), condom

use (Stone, Aronson, Crain, Winslow, & Fried, 1994), and

generosity (McKimmie et al., 2003)). Cognitive dissonance

describes the uncomfortable feeling we get when we are

confronted by a disconnect in the beliefs we hold and the

behaviors we do (Cooper, 2012). We are motivated to reduce

this dissonance by either changing our behavior or our

attitudes. As attitudes are often firmly established and more

difficult to change it is more likely that, in order to reduce

dissonance, we will change our behavior before we change our

attitude (Festinger, 1962). It is for this reason that

behavioral interventions using cognitive dissonance have been

found to be effective.

The most successful use of Cognitive Dissonance

interventions have been the Body Project intervention aimed at

reducing negative behaviors and thinking surrounding eating

disorders (Halliwell & Diedrichs, 2014; Stice et al., 2013).

The intervention included four moderated sessions where

participants spoke about the negatives surrounding thin

idealisation, wrote and presented an essay about this topic,

generated ways women could challenge the thin ideal and wrote

a letter to a younger woman about avoiding developing a

negative body image. The intervention targeted three

constructs found to be efficacious in behavioral change

through cognitive dissonance (Green, Scott, Diyankova, Gasser,

& Pederson, 2005): participation was voluntary; participants

were accountable for their actions and opinions; and the tasks

(essay writing etc.) were effortful. The result of the

intervention was that, compared to a control group who

received information brochures, the intervention group had a

significantly greater decrease in eating disorder risk factors

and symptoms.

The basis of the majority of cognitive dissonance

interventions is pointing out the hypocrisy of having one set

of attitudes but behaving in another way. Prunty and Apple,

2013 used this approach to alter people’s attitudes and

behaviors towards factory farmed meat. By publicly advocating

against factory farming participants had fewer intentions to

eat meat in the future and showed greater concern for animals

in factory farms. A similar paradigm was used to increase

condom use (Stone et al., 1994) where participants gave a talk

to camera about safe sex then thought about times they had not

engaged in safe sex. This inducement of hypocrisy was

effective at encouraging participants to purchase more condoms

at the end of the study than those who had not had the

hypocrisy of their actions made aware to them.

An important factor in ensuring effect cognitive

dissonance interventions is inducing hypocrisy that runs

against societal norms. If people believe the behavior they

are engaging in or attitudes they hold are normal within their

social circle, it will be easy to justify their thoughts and

actions so dissonance will not occur (Stone & Fernandez,

2008). McKimmie et al., 2003 found that when people believed

their social group were not very generous they altered their

attitude to match their less generous behavior rather than

pledge to change their behavior. The implications for this in

the context of this current research are that for our proposed

cognitive dissonance intervention to be effective, we will

need to ensure the social norm is to not engage in slacktivist

behavior.

The majority of cognitive dissonance interventions have

included intense group sessions to induce hypocrisy in

participants. This is costly and time consuming. It is also

important to develop an intervention that can be delivered

directly to those whose behavior we want to change. In this

case it is slacktivists who we will find online. As such

developing an online cognitive dissonance intervention is the

best approach. This research will establish if previously

tested cognitive dissonance interventions are effective when

delivered through online channels. Being able to deliver an

intervention online will increase the efficiency of these

interventions that could be applied in other areas of social

change. It is pivotal that research is conducted in this area

and a marketing intervention developed to ensure much needed

public donations are not lost through the misdirected actions

of people who do actually support your cause.

Project Aims

The aim of this research is to determine the beliefs and

behaviors involved in slacktivist behavior and ultimately

convert non-meaningful acts of support on social media to

meaningful ones (e.g. donations). Drawing on cognitive

dissonance theory, specifically the hypocrisy paradigm where

people are motivated to reduce dissonance created by being

made aware of the disconnect between their thoughts and

behavior, it is predicted that slacktivists who have been

encouraged to think how their actions have not helped the

charity would feel dissonance and want to reduce it.

Specifically they will change their behavior to include more

meaningful types of support (e.g. donations).

Study one will consist of an online survey and aims to

identify and confirm slacktivist behavior within a cognitive

dissonance framework. It makes predictions about key

constructs that will be targeted in the intervention evaluated

in study two. These key constructs are slacktivist behavior,

attitudes towards slacktivism, and norms surrounding

slacktivism. We expect that those who in engage in

slacktivism: will be less likely to donate meaningfully; will

hold positive attitudes towards it; and see it as a normative

behavior both within their social network and on social media

in general.

Study two will test the efficacy of a hypocrisy inducing

marketing intervention within existing social media platforms,

specifically Facebook. It aims to reframe norms surrounding

slacktivism and will make people mindful of the inconsistency

between their behavior and attitudes using a hypocrisy

paradigm. This will encourage participants to change their

behavior in order to reduce dissonance and ultimately donate

more meaningfully to Unicef. We expect that participants who

receive the intervention (compared with a control group): will

donate more money; have more negative attitudes towards

slacktivism; and perceive it as less normative behavior.

Research Plan & Timelines

Study One

Participants

Participants will be recruited from Facebook. Unicef

Australia’s Facebook page currently has approximately 1,000

engaged followers. We will aim to recruit these 1000 people

and a further 1,000 participants using targeted Facebook

advertising. This will give a total of 2,000 participants.

Measures

Slacktivist Behavior.

Participants will receive a series of questions relating

to their past and current slacktivist behaviors. As there is

no established scale for slacktivist behavior we have

developed a series of questions aimed to investigate common

perceived charitable behavior on social media: Liking Facebook

pages, tweeting charity-related hashtags, sharing charity-

related material, and displaying charity-related profile

pictures. Items are measured on a seven point Likert scale

anchored from (never) to (frequently). Example items include “I

share videos with my Facebook friends about current social

issues” and “I like charity pages on Facebook”. This new

measure will be assessed for reliability and validity during

data analysis.

Attitudes.

Participants will receive a series of questions relating

to their attitudes surrounding slacktivist behaviors. As there

is no established scale for slacktivist attitudes we have

developed a series of questions exploring these attitudes.

Items are measured on a seven point Likert scale anchored from

(strongly disagree) to (strongly agree). Example items include “I

believe discussing issues on Facebook makes a real difference

in the world” and “The number of retweets a charity hashtag

can get on Twitter is related to how helpful that charity is”.

This new measure will be assessed for reliability and validity

during data analysis.

 

Perceived Norms.

We will measure perceived norms through a series of

questions developed to assess participant’s belief of

normative behavior surrounding slacktivism. Items are measured

on a seven point Likert scale anchored from (strongly disagree) to

(strongly agree). Example items include “My Facebook friends

regularly share charity-related memes (images, videos, text,

etc.) that they have copied from another source” and “It is

common for people to change their profile pictures on social

media to align themselves with a cause”. This new measure will

be assessed for reliability and validity during data analysis.

Design & Procedure

Participants will receive the measures through a survey

that will be delivered electronically via Facebook with items

from each measure counterbalanced. Participants will access it

via link on the Unicef Facebook page, or through a targeted

Facebook advertisement. Upon completion of the survey,

participants will be thanked for their time and debriefed on

the nature of the study.

Study Two

Participants

100 participants will be recruited from Unicef’s potential

donor database to take place in the online intervention. The

study will target current Facebook users who have not donated

money to Unicef in the past 12 months in order to reach

potential slacktivists.

Measures

Behavior, attitudes, and norms.

Measures of slacktivist behavior, attitudes towards

slacktivism and perceptions of norms surrounding slacktivism

will be the same as used in study one.

Facebook intervention.

The intervention will consist of a Unicef-branded Facebook

charity page which participants will engage with during a lab

session using their personal Facebook accounts. The sessions

will run 10 participants at a time over five sessions. The

Facebook page will have a series of information-based posts

taken from the current Unicef page as well as the following

manipulations to induce cognitive dissonance. The control

condition will only receive the information-based posts.

Perceived norms.

The banner image at the top of the page will display a

message promoting the norms of the group against slacktivism

and towards meaningful actions: “Thank you for supporting

Unicef on Facebook. Together we raised over 18 million dollars

in the last year allowing us to save real lives. Proving that

a donation is more helpful than a like”. The control condition

will be headed with a banner that reads: “Thank you for

supporting Unicef on Facebook”.

Hypocrisy.

Through a series Facebook posts from page moderators (e.g.

“share your support of Unicef’s goals to reduce world

poverty”), Participants will be encouraged to change their

Facebook profile picture to a “I support Unicef” graphic. This

taps two of the three constructs needed to induce cognitive

dissonance: it is a voluntary act that makes participants

accountable to their social network. A further series of posts

will prompt discussion about past support of charities and

causes online and the negative outcomes slacktivist behavior

can have on charity fundraising. This taps the third construct

in that it is effortful to engage in such mindfulness of past

actions.

Donation Behavior.

All conditions will include a link to donate that is

promoted on the Facebook page, encouraging participants to

donate securely online. Participants will also be rewarded

with $5 (issued in $1 coins) for their participation in the

study. Upon leaving the session, there will be a donation box

for Unicef allowing participants to donate if they choose to.

They are free to choose the amount they donate: part of their

payment, all of their payment, or greater than their payment.

Design & Procedure

Time one.

Behavior, attitude, and norm measures will be administered

via online survey emailed to participants at the start of the

study.

Intervention.

One week later participants will be brought into a

computer lab where they will participate in an online

administered intervention over Facebook. At the end of this

intervention participants will complete the time one measures

and will be given the opportunity to donate to Unicef. While

it is possible to run this study completely online, it is

important to ensure participants are only engaging in one

Facebook community at a time. A lab based study is the best

way to ensure this experimental control in order to evaluate

the effectiveness of the intervention.

Time two.

A further week later, participants will be emailed a

second survey which includes the time one measures and given a

second opportunity to donate to Unicef.

Tasks & Key Milestones Time Period DurationYear 1Preparation of ethics application for Study 1 for Unicef and UQ ethics panels

2/2/15 – 13/2/15 2 weeks

Finalise materials for Study 1 in light of feedback from ethics panels

2/3/15 – 10/4/15 6 weeks

Advertise links on Unicef Facebook page & targeted Facebook ads (continued throughout active surveytime)

13/4/15 – 26/4/15 2 weeks

Survey active 13/4/15 – 26/4/15 2 weeks

Input data from Study 1 27/4/15 – 22/4/15 4 weeks

Analyse data from Study 1 25/4/15 – 17/7/15 8 weeks

Prepare report for Unicef on findings from Study 1

20/7/15 – 14/8/15 4 weeks

Prepare manuscript for publication (peer reviewed journal) on basis offindings to date in project

17/8/15 – 9/10/15 8 weeks

Ethics for Study 2 12/10/15 – 6/11/15 4 weeks

Finalise materials in light of feedback from ethics

9/11/15 – 11/12/15 5 weeks

Year 2Recruit participants from potentialdonor database for Study 2, via phone

6/1/16 – 22/1/16 3 weeks

Email out survey 1 links & 25/1/16 – 1 week

Intervention times 29/1/16

Survey 1 active 25/1/16 – 31/1/16 1 week

Email reminder of Intervention time 27/1/16 – 29/1/16 < 1 week

Run ten sessions of Intervention 1/2/16 – 4/3/16 5 weeks

Email out survey 2 links 7/3/16 – 11/3/16 1 week

Survey 2 active 7/3/16 – 13/3/16 1 week

Input data from Study 2 14/3/16 – 8/4/16 4 weeks

Analyse data from Study 2 11/4/16 – 3/6/16 8 weeks

Prepare report for Unicef Australiaon findings from Study 2

6/6/16 – 29/7/16 8 weeks

Prepare manuscript for publication (peer reviewed journal) on basis offindings to date in project

1/8/16 – 23/9/16 8 weeks

Outcomes

There has been little research conducted into online

slacktivist behavior, and none into how to convert slacktivist

actions into meaningful donations. This research will be the

first to implement and evaluate an intervention into

slacktivism on Facebook. A report by Roy Morgan Research

(2013) found that while 66% of Australians donated to charity

in 2012, this was down 4% from 2008. This is despite an

increase in charity based social media engagement during that

time (Give Now, 2014). An additional 4% donated to Unicef in

the last financial year translates to $745,551. This gap in

donations could have been spent on:

- 6,372 HIV test kits to test 637,223 mothers before

the birth of their child

- 13,806 measles vaccines to vaccinate 2,761,200

children

- Food for 111,832 malnourished children in order to

bring them back to health

While donations overall have fallen in the past five years

there have been changes in the way people engage with

charities. With the growing ease of online donation, the

number of people choosing to donate this way has risen 46%

(Ray Morgan Research, 2013). By converting slacktivists on the

Unicef Facebook page we can increase much needed donations

that have decreased in the past five years. Unicef Australia

currently has 25,455 likes (approximately 1000 of which were

active in the past month) on Facebook and 22,198 Twitter

followers. If not all of these people are donating – if, for

example, only 1% are active financial contributors (as was the

case with the Save Dafur campaign) – Unicef is wasting precious

resources maintaining social media marketing. It is critical

that research is conducted into how supporters of charities

engage with social media and interventions to convert

slacktivists into meaningful supporters are developed. Beyond

assisting Unicef with its social media marketing this will be

beneficial to every charity, fund raiser, community group,

activist group, political group etc that uses social media to

canvas meaningful support world-wide. It will also put both

Unicef and Australia as a leader in research into slacktivism,

an area that has been largely ignored to this date despite

growing awareness and concern about this issue in the public

conscious.

Budget & Justification

Year 02-02-2015 – 11-12-2015

Costs AmountRequested

Personnel (salaries + on-costs)1 x Casual research assistant (HEW 3) at $33.78 per hour, maximum 15 hours per week (+18% on-costs) for maximum 6 weeks13/4/15 – 22/4/15

$3,587.44

Total Personnel $3,587.44MaintenanceTargeted Facebook advertising for recruiting participants – running two weeks

$500.00

Total Maintenance $500.00In-Kind CostsMaximum of 1 post/day on the Unicef Facebook page to advertise the survey for Study 1

nil

Total In-Kind Costs nilTotal Cost for 2015 $4,087.44

Year 02-02-2015 – 11-12-2015

Costs AmountRequested

Personnel (salaries + on-costs)1 x Casual research assistant (HEW 3) at $33.78 per hour, maximum 15 hours per week (+18% on-costs) for maximum 12 weeks25/1/16 – 8/4/16

$7,174.87

Total Personnel $7,174.87MaintenanceSocial media web developer to set up two Facebookcharity pages

$5,000

Graphic design to create profile pic graphic and banner image

$500.00

Total Maintenance $5,500.00In-Kind CostsAccess to the Unicef potential donors database nil

for recruitment in Study 2Maximum two Unicef volunteers to call potential donors database for a maximum of three weeks for recruitment in Study 26/1/16 – 22/1/16

nil

Total In-Kind Costs nilOther CostsPayment of $5/participant as a compensation for their time x 100 participants

$500.00

Total Other Costs $500.00Total Cost for 2015 $13,174.87

GRAND TOTAL $17,262.31

Personnel

A HEW Level 3 casual research assistant is required for

Study 1 to assist with administering the targeted Facebook

advertising and collating survey responses as they come in

online. They will also be assisting with data entry of the

survey responses. They are required for a maximum of 15 hours

a week and a maximum of six weeks. A HEW Level 3 casual

research assistant is also required for Study 2 to assist with

emailing out survey links and reminders for intervention time

slots to participants. They will be on site during the lab

intervention sessions to aid the chief investigator with

administering the intervention. They will also be assisting

with data entry of the survey responses. They are required for

a maximum of 15 hours a week and a maximum of 12 weeks. The

presence of research assistants on the project will allow time

for the chief investigator to oversee the analyses of the

results and ensure the surveys and interventions are

administered correctly.

Maintenance

Targeted Facebook advertising will allow us to sample a

greater population of Facebook users who are not already

engaging with the Unicef but have liked other charities pages.

This will give us an accurate understanding of how slacktivism

is occurring in a broader Facebook context.

The development of intervention and control Facebook

charity pages is important to ensure the intervention is

evaluated in a controlled experimental environment. As there

is no way to control what groups participants join on Facebook

we would not be able to draw any conclusions from the research

if it was run on the current Unicef Facebook charity page.

Once the research is complete these Facebook pages can be

merged with the current page. A graphic designer is required

to create a graphic profile pic that users will want to

display to show their identification with the cause. After the

research is complete Unicef will retain the support logo for

use on their current Facebook page.

In-Kind Costs

Being able to run the intervention on Unicef potential

donors will allow us to target people who have a desire to

help Unicef but have not made the commitment to do so. It is

essential that the intervention is tested on a sample that

will be closely related to the ultimate target audience of the

intervention when it is rolled out on the active Unicef

Facebook page. Having Unicef volunteers, who are already

trained in contacting potential volunteers will save time and

resources in training research assistants to conduct the

recruitment.

Having the current Facebook moderator’s posts on our

behalf will allow us to recruit from Unicef’s current

supporters to gather their direct insights. This could be set

up to automatically post during the times of the lab sessions

or the Facebook moderator could post in real time.

Other Costs

To encourage people to participate we will pay

participants $5 per person. This is also essential to measure

the outcome variable of donation behavior as participants will

be able to donate this money back to Unicef at the end of

their intervention session.

References

Ciao, A. C., & Latner, J. D. (2011). Reducing obesity stigma:

The effectiveness of cognitive dissonance and social

consensus interventions. Obesity Journal, 19(9), 1768 - 1774.

doi: 10.1038/oby.2011.106

Cooper, J. (2012). Cognitive Dissonance Theory. In P. A. M. V.

Lange, A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of

Theories of Social Psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 377-398). London: Sage

Publications Ltd.

Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American,

207(4), 93-107. doi: 10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93

Give Now. (2014). Giving in Australia. Retrieved from:

http://www.givenow.com.au/

stats;jsessionid=BDC135CBDA57655E605F17B0AF4BAFDE

Green, M., Scott, N., Diyankova, I., Gasser, C., & Pederson,

E. (2005). Eating disorder prevention: an experimental

comparison of high level dissonance, low level

dissonance, and no-treatment control. Eating Disorders, 13,

157-169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024351

Gringart, E., & Helmes, E. (2008). Harnessing cognitive

dissonance to promote positive attitudes toward older

workers in Australia. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38(3),

751-778.

Halliwell, E., & Diedrichs, P. C. (2014). Testing a dissonance

body image intervention among young girls. Health Psychology,

33(2), 201-204. doi: 10.1037/a0032585

Krishna, A. (2011). Can supporting a cause decrease donations

and happiness? The cause marketing paradox. Journal of

Consumer Psychology, 21, 338-345.

Kristofferson, K., White, K., & Peloza, J. (2013). The nature

of slacktivism: How the social observability of an

initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial

action. Journal of Consumer Research, 40. doi: 10.1086/674137

Lee, Y.-H., & Hsieh, G. (2013). Does slacktivism hurt

activism?: The effects of moral balancing and consistency

on online activism. CHI, 13. doi: 978-1-4503-1899-0/13/04

Lewis, K., Gray, K., & Meierhenrich, J. (2014). The structure

of online activism. Sociological Science, 1, 1-9. doi:

10.15195/v1.a1

McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S.

R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I’m a hypocrite, but

so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of

cognitive Dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and

Practice, 7(3), 214-224. doi: 10.1037/1089-2699.7.3.214

Prunty, J., & Apple, K. J. (2013). Painfully aware: The

effects of dissonance on attitudes toward factory

farming. Anthrozoös, 26(2), 265-278. doi:

10.2752/175303713X13636846944367

Rosenberg, J., & Egbert, N. (2011). Online impression

management: Personality traits and concerns for secondary

goals as predictors of self-presentation tactics on

Facebook. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 17, 1-18.

doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2011.01560.x

Ross, M. (2014). Facebook turns 10: the world's largest social

network in numbers, from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-

02-04/facebook-turns-10-the-social-network-in-numbers/

5237128

Roy Morgan Research. (2013). Caring but not as much sharing: Aussies

donating less. Retrieved from:

http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/2066-caring-but-not-as-

much-201401222324

Stice, E., Butryn, M. L., Rohde, P., Shawa, H., & Marti, C. N.

(2013). An effectiveness trial of a new enhanced

dissonance eating disorder prevention program among

female college students. Behavior Research and Therapy, 51, 862-

871.

Stone, J., Aronson, E., Crain, A. L., Winslow, M. P., & Fried,

C. B. (1994). Inducing hypocrisy as a means of

encouraging young adults to use condoms. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 20(1), 116-128. doi:

10.1177/0146167294201012

Stone, J., & Fernandez, N. C. (2008). To practice what we

preach: The use of hypocrisy and cognitive dissonance to

motivate behavior change. Social and Personality Psychology

Compass, 2.