What results from individuals having insufficient external justification for resisting a desired object?

What results from individuals having insufficient external justification for resisting a desired object?

• A. Self-Persuasion
• B. Insufficient Punishment
• C. Hypocrisy Induction
• D. Counterattitudinal Advocacy

Answer: (B)

The correct answer is self-persuasion. When individuals find themselves facing the conflict of desiring an object but lacking sufficient external justification to resist it, they often engage in self-persuasion. This internal process leads them to change their attitudes or beliefs about the desired object, enabling them to align their attitudes with their behaviors, even in the absence of strong external factors. For instance, if someone wants to eat a tempting dessert but knows they should resist it for health reasons, the lack of adequate external justification (such as a strong external authority figure insisting they don't eat it) may lead them to convince themselves that the dessert isn’t as appealing as they initially thought. This self-persuasion helps them to justify their decision internally and can lead to a genuine change in attitude regarding that dessert. In contrast, insufficient punishment refers to scenarios where minor consequences fail to deter a behavior effectively, which does not apply in this context of internal justification. Hypocrisy induction involves creating cognitive dissonance by exposing a person to their conflicting behaviors and attitudes, rather than focusing on the lack of justification. Counterattitudinal advocacy is when individuals promote positions that contradict their beliefs, which can happen when they are given incentives or rewards, but do not specifically highlight the lack

The correct answer is self-persuasion. When individuals find themselves facing the conflict of desiring an object but lacking sufficient external justification to resist it, they often engage in self-persuasion. This internal process leads them to change their attitudes or beliefs about the desired object, enabling them to align their attitudes with their behaviors, even in the absence of strong external factors.

For instance, if someone wants to eat a tempting dessert but knows they should resist it for health reasons, the lack of adequate external justification (such as a strong external authority figure insisting they don't eat it) may lead them to convince themselves that the dessert isn’t as appealing as they initially thought. This self-persuasion helps them to justify their decision internally and can lead to a genuine change in attitude regarding that dessert.

In contrast, insufficient punishment refers to scenarios where minor consequences fail to deter a behavior effectively, which does not apply in this context of internal justification. Hypocrisy induction involves creating cognitive dissonance by exposing a person to their conflicting behaviors and attitudes, rather than focusing on the lack of justification. Counterattitudinal advocacy is when individuals promote positions that contradict their beliefs, which can happen when they are given incentives or rewards, but do not specifically highlight the lack