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.
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.
Top Related