Cognitive Dissonance Theory: SPSS Analysis of Drinking Age Attitudes

This SPSS lab report investigates cognitive dissonance theory, focusing on its application to attitudes toward the legal drinking age. The study, conducted with first-year psychology students at an Australian university, employed SPSS to analyze participant responses and evaluate the theory. The report includes an introduction to cognitive dissonance, a literature review of relevant theories (Festinger, Rabbie, Brehm & Cohen, Harmon-Jones, Hinojosa, Chang), and a detailed methodology section outlining participants, design, materials, and procedure. Results are presented with statistical tables and figures, examining participant agreement with various statements related to drinking behavior and legal drinking age. The discussion section interprets the findings, linking them to cognitive dissonance principles and considering the study's limitations, such as the exclusion of factors like biological structures and chemical imbalances. The report concludes by suggesting that raising the drinking age to 21 could create dissonance and potentially alter behaviors and beliefs. References to key sources and appendices with statistical data are also included.

SPSS LAB REPORT

ABSTRACT
Cognitive dissonance theory is referred as tendency for individuals for seeking
consistency between different beliefs and opinions. This study will help in process of decision
making and on basis of selective exposure of information. The participants were recruited from
Australian university from 1st year psychology with accomplished from course credit. The
outcome has been evaluated with statistical tool SPSS on responses of situation. It has not
considered various factors which are creating impact on behaviour such as chemical imbalances
and biological structure. This would directly lead to human behaviour with various people for
accounting each individual in separate aspect.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................2
Introduction.................................................................................................................................4
Literature review.........................................................................................................................4
Justification of study...................................................................................................................5
Hypotheses Statement.................................................................................................................5
METHOD 300.................................................................................................................................5
Participants..................................................................................................................................5
.....................................................................................................................................................6
Design.........................................................................................................................................6
Materials......................................................................................................................................6
Procedure....................................................................................................................................7
RESULTS........................................................................................................................................8
DISCUSSION................................................................................................................................17
REFERENCES..............................................................................................................................19
APPENDICES...............................................................................................................................20

Topic: To assist theory of cognitive dissonance with context of attitude towards legal
drinking age.
Introduction
Cognitive dissonance is replicated as situation which consist of conflicting attitude,
behaviour along with different belief. Generally, it produces feeling of discomfort which leads to
changes in attitude, behaviour and beliefs for decreasing level of discomfort and to restore
balance as well. For instance, when people drinks (behaviour) and they know that it causes
various disease (cognition). Then they are referred in cognitive dissonance state (van der Kolk &
Kaufmann, 2018).
Literature review
According to Festinger's (1957), theory of cognitive dissonance has recommended that
presence of inner drive for holding behaviour and attitude of all on basis of harmony and to
ignore dissonance. It is replicated as cognitive consistency's principle as if there is absence of
consistency among attitude and behaviour then there is requirement of alteration to substitute
dissonance. However Rabbie, Brehm & Cohen (1959), changing beliefs and attitude is more
consistent on basis of action and conflicts.
As per views of Hinojosa & et.al. (2017), this cognitive approach helps in depicting
picture to observe inward and to extract that how brain will interpret stimuli. It would be
highlighting impact of cognition on behaviour with its significance to people for understanding
the way of brain operations. This dissonance is beneficial for those who doesn't wants to be
faithful to their brain and to alter behaviour for better aspect. Thus, it directly highlights the
thought process of people. On the contrary, according to Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones & Levy
(2015), significant factor of human behaviour are dismisses as people who believe in this
approach that each aspect is boiled down to perform one thing that is process of cognitive. In
simple words, it doesn't consider factors which impact behaviours like individual experience,
genes, chemical imbalances and biological structure. It could lead to generalizing behaviours of
human which does not suit with various people who accounts every individual in different
aspect. So, it defeats people with unique behaviour and thought process as compared to normal
due to single or more listed factor.
According to Chang, Solomon & Westerfield (2016), it is fully based on various
controlled experiments with application of scientific methods. As different people has pointed

some experiments which might be not valid as they look as with observation of controlled
environment, they get responses which are closely associated to stimuli which is exposed to
subject. However, they did not get observation about subject with context of real world where
they are fully exposed to various stimuli for presence of reaction on basis of combined
information.
Justification of study
This study related to cognitive dissonance helps in providing implication with alterations
in someone's attitude for creating dissonance on basis of hope with desired outcome. This study
will help in process of decision making and on basis of selective exposure of information.
Hypotheses Statement
This study is designed for testing theory of cognitive dissonance for asking participants
for supporting to raise drinking age by 21 or participants who does not support to increasing
legal drinking age by 21.
METHOD 300
Participants
The participants were recruited from Australian university from 1st year psychology with
accomplished from course credit.
Age: From 18 to 67
Participant age
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 18 24 21.1 22.4 22.4
19 28 24.6 26.2 48.6
20 14 12.3 13.1 61.7
21 11 9.6 10.3 72.0
22 6 5.3 5.6 77.6
23 4 3.5 3.7 81.3
24 2 1.8 1.9 83.2
25 1 .9 .9 84.1
26 2 1.8 1.9 86.0
27 1 .9 .9 86.9
28 1 .9 .9 87.9

32 4 3.5 3.7 91.6
34 1 .9 .9 92.5
37 1 .9 .9 93.5
41 1 .9 .9 94.4
43 1 .9 .9 95.3
47 1 .9 .9 96.3
49 1 .9 .9 97.2
52 1 .9 .9 98.1
61 1 .9 .9 99.1
67 1 .9 .9 100.0
Total 107 93.9 100.0
Missing System 7 6.1
Total 114 100.0
Gender:
In this experiment, there were total 48.25 male, 47.4% female and others were 1.8% as
its aggregate was 111 but in this system 3 participants gender was missing.
Design
Independent variable: Age, gender
Dependent variable: Drinking alcohol
Materials
The participants were asked about support for increasing drinking age to 21 or not. In this
situation, they have set various conditions which were classified in two groups. The group 1 was
who disagree for not supporting to raise drinking age to 21 were assigned one or two condition
on random basis. In the similar aspect, participants of control condition were asked top express
their opinion and reason for not changing to 21 years. This group was replicated as experimental

group. With context of both condition, all participants were instructed for persuasiveness with
possibility of different arguments. They collected response to various statement for giving
measure of participant agreement after experimental manipulation which are:
1. 18 year old do not drink alcohol responsibly.
2. 18 year old often engage in binge drinking.
3. 18 year old are not mature in their alcohol consumption.
4. Raising the legal drinking age would help reduce road deaths.
5. Raising the legal drinking age would help reduce binge drinking.
6. The legal age for drinking alcohol should be examined carefully.
7. Raising legal drinking age would reduce alcohol or drug abuse.
8. The legal age for drinking alcohol should be raised to 21 years.
9. The legal age for drinking alcohol should be examined by politicians, scientists and
general public.
Procedure
In this study, the outcome has been evaluated with statistical tool SPSS on responses of
situation with group who doesn't support raising of drinking age to 21.
Statistical package for social sciences which is used for analysing data and to extract text data
which could get outcome of different research projects (SPSS with its benefits, 2018).

RESULTS
The above table is signifying statement of 18 year old do not drink alcohol in responsible
method where approximate 36% agree with this but 2.6% strongly disagree with this statement.
The majority of participants falls in neutral mode as 41.2% and 19.3% disagree with that 18
years old are not drinking alcohol in responsible aspect.

In this study, 52.7% participants are comprised in control group as they do not get any
treatment and implied as benchmark and 47.45 are considered in experimental group who has
gained experimental procedure for testing selected sample.

In this study, it had been articulated that 7.95 disagree that 18 years old often involves in
binge drinking but 76.3% agree with this where 19.3% strongly agree for binge drinking. In the
similar aspect 15.85 participants were comprised in neutral mode.

The participants have given responses on statement with 18 year old are not mature by
consuming alcohol. Here 26.3% agree about immaturity where 8.8% strongly agree and 44.7%
are considered in neutral mode. On the contrary, minor portion of 3.3% strongly disagree and
23.7% are contradicting to this statement.

With context of reducing road deaths, the legal drinking age should be raised is said by
22.8% and 23.7% neither disagree nor agree. But 53.5% disagree in which 17.5% were strongly
disagreed with this increment of drinking age.