Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

, Volume 12, Issue 2, pp 335–339 | Cite as

Contrast and the justification of effort

  • Emily D. Klein
  • Ramesh S. Bhatt
  • Thomas R. Zentall
Brief Reports


When humans are asked to evaluate rewards or outcomes that follow unpleasant (e.g., high-effort) events, they often assign higher value to that reward. This phenomenon has been referred to ascognitive dissonance or justification of effort. There is now evidence that a similar phenomenon can be found in nonhuman animals. When demonstrated in animals, however, it has been attributed to contrast between the unpleasant high effort and the conditioned stimulus for food. In the present experiment, we asked whether an analogous effect could be found in humans under conditions similar to those found in animals. Adult humans were trained to discriminate between shapes that followed a high-effort versus a low-effort response. In test, participants were found to prefer shapes that followed the high-effort response in training. These results suggest the possibility that contrast effects of the sort extensively studied in animals may play a role in cognitive dissonance and other related phenomena in humans.


Conditioned Stimulus Test Trial Discriminative Stimulus Cognitive Dissonance High Effort 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Aronson, E., &Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group.Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology,59, 177–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Bulletin,114, 80–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Church, R. M., LoLordo, V. M., Overmier, J. B., Solomon, R. L., &Turner, L. H. (1966). Cardiac responses to shock in curarized dogs: Effects of shock intensity and duration, warning signal, and prior experience with shock.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology,62, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Clement, T. S., Feltus, J. R., Kaiser, D. H., &Zentall, T. R. (2000). “Work ethic” in pigeons: Reward value is directly related to the effort or time required to obtain the reward.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,7, 100–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clement, T. S., &Zentall, T. R. (2002). Second-order contrast based on the expectation of effort and reinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,28, 64–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crespi, L. P. (1942). Quantitative variation in incentive and performance in the white rat.American Journal of Psychology,55, 467–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DiGian, K. A., Friedrich, A. M., &Zentall, T. R. (2004). Discriminative stimuli that follow a delay have added value for pigeons.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 889–895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fantino, E., &Abarca, N. (1985). Choice, optimal foraging, and the delay-reduction hypothesis.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,8, 315–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Festinger, L. (1957).A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Flaherty, C. F. (1982). Incentive contrast: A review of behavioral changes following shifts in reward.Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 409–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Flaherty, C. F. (1996).Incentive relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Friedrich, A. M., Clement, T. S., & Zentall, T. R. (in press). Discriminative stimuli that follow the absence of reinforcement are preferred by pigeons over those that follow reinforcement.Learning & Behavior.Google Scholar
  13. Hull, C. L. (1943).Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.Google Scholar
  14. Lewis, M. (1964). Effect of effort on value: An exploratory study of children.Child Development,35, 1337–1342.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lodewijkx, H. F. M., &Syroit, J. E. M. M. (2001). Affiliation during naturalistic severe and mild initiations: Some further evidence against the severity—attraction hypothesis.Current Research in Social Psychology,6, 90–107.Google Scholar
  16. Reynolds, G. S. (1961). An analysis of interactions in a multiple schedule.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,4, 107–117.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Schachter, S. (1959).The psychology of affiliation: Experimental studies of the sources of gregariousness. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Spetch, M. L., Wilkie, D. M., &Pinel, J. P. (1981). Backward conditioning: A reevaluation of the empirical evidence.Psychological Bulletin,89, 163–175.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Williams, B. A. (1981). The following schedule of reinforcement as a fundamental determinant of steady-state contrast in multiple schedules.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,35, 293–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Williams, B. A., &Wixted, J. T. (1986). An equation for behavioral contrast.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,45, 47–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Zentall, T. R., &Clement, T. S. (2001). Simultaneous discrimination learning: Stimulus interactions.Animal Learning & Behavior,29, 311–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emily D. Klein
    • 1
  • Ramesh S. Bhatt
    • 1
  • Thomas R. Zentall
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations