Editing Cognitive dissonance (section)

===Effort justification===
{{further|Effort justification}}
Cognitive dissonance occurs in a person who voluntarily engages in (physically or ethically) unpleasant activities to achieve a goal. The [[Psychological stress|mental stress]] caused by the dissonance can be reduced by the person exaggerating the desirability of the goal. In ''The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group'' (1956), to qualify for admission to a discussion group, two groups of people underwent an embarrassing initiation of varied psychological severity. The first group of subjects were to read aloud twelve sexual words considered obscene; the second group of subjects were to read aloud twelve sexual words not considered obscene.<ref name="Aronson & Mills 1959">{{cite journal | vauthors = Aronson E, Mills J |title=The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group |journal=The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology |date=1959 |volume=59 |issue=2 |pages=177–181 |doi=10.1037/h0047195 |citeseerx=10.1.1.368.1481 }}</ref>

Both groups were given headphones to unknowingly listen to a recorded discussion about animal sexual behaviour, which the researchers designed to be dull and banal. As the subjects of the experiment, the groups of people were told that the animal-sexuality discussion actually was occurring in the next room. The subjects whose strong initiation required reading aloud obscene words evaluated the people of their group as more-interesting persons than the people of the group who underwent the mild initiation to the discussion group.<ref name="Aronson & Mills 1959"/>

In ''Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing'' (2006), the results indicated that a person washing their hands is an action that helps resolve post-decisional cognitive dissonance because the mental stress usually was caused by the person's ethical–moral self-disgust, which is an emotion related to the physical disgust caused by a dirty environment.<ref name="leeschwarz" /><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Zhong CB, Liljenquist K | title = Washing away your sins: threatened morality and physical cleansing | journal = Science | volume = 313 | issue = 5792 | pages = 1451–1452 | date = September 2006 | pmid = 16960010 | doi = 10.1126/science.1130726 | s2cid = 33103635 | citeseerx = 10.1.1.181.571 | bibcode = 2006Sci...313.1451Z }}</ref>
 
The study ''The Neural Basis of Rationalization: Cognitive Dissonance Reduction During Decision-making'' (2011) indicated that participants rated 80 names and 80 paintings based on how much they liked the names and paintings. To give meaning to the decisions, the participants were asked to select names that they might give to their children. For rating the paintings, the participants were asked to base their ratings on whether or not they would display such art at home.<ref name=JarchoEtAl_NeuralBasisRationalization/>

The results indicated that when the decision is meaningful to the person deciding value, the likely rating is based on their attitudes (positive, neutral or negative) towards the name and towards the painting in question. The participants also were asked to rate some of the objects twice and believed that, at session's end, they would receive two of the paintings they had positively rated. The results indicated a great increase in the positive attitude of the participant towards the liked pair of things, whilst also increasing the negative attitude towards the disliked pair of things. The double-ratings of pairs of things, towards which the rating participant had a neutral attitude, showed no changes during the rating period. The existing attitudes of the participant were reinforced during the rating period and the participants experienced cognitive dissonance when confronted by a liked-name paired with a disliked-painting.<ref name="JarchoEtAl_NeuralBasisRationalization" />

In the study, ''Does effort increase or decrease reward validation? Considerations from cognitive dissonance theory'' (2024), the authors discovered that effort justification and effort discounting may determine the amount of reward valuation a person feels after completing a task.<ref name=":5">{{Cite journal |last1=Harmon-Jones |first1=Eddie |last2=Matis |first2=Sophie |last3=Angus |first3=Douglas J. |last4=Harmon-Jones |first4=Cindy |date=June 2024 |title=Does effort increase or decrease reward valuation? Considerations from cognitive dissonance theory |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/psyp.14536 |journal=Psychophysiology |language=en |volume=61 |issue=6 |doi=10.1111/psyp.14536 |pmid=38323360 |issn=0048-5772}}</ref> Effort justification is the term used for high efforts leading to high rewards. Effort discounting is the term used for high efforts leading to low rewards. These terms relate to Cognitive Dissonance because humans enjoy controlling the efforts that may lead to rewards. This study determined that having high control can lead to higher efforts, leading to higher rewards. Similarly, having low control can lead to higher efforts yet lower rewards.<ref name=":5" /> These results indicate that humans seek highly controllable situations and actions to receive rewards for their efforts. The ability to control one’s actions is crucial for eliminating the effects of Cognitive Dissonance. It is also essential in the process of decision-making without any influence, whether positive or negative, from others.