1. 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.
Debra Lindsay
42613035
Word count 1 (3,449)
Word count 2 (4,541)

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. 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.

9. 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 Duration
Year 1
Preparation 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 survey
time)
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 of findings to date in project
17/8/15 – 9/10/15 8 weeks
Ethics for Study 2 12/10/15 – 6/11/15 4 weeks

10. Finalise materials in light of feedback from ethics 9/11/15 – 11/12/15 5 weeks
Year 2
Recruit participants from potential donor database
for Study 2, via phone
6/1/16 – 22/1/16 3 weeks
Email out survey 1 links & Intervention times 25/1/16 – 29/1/16 1 week
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 Australia on findings from
Study 2
6/6/16 – 29/7/16 8 weeks
Prepare manuscript for publication (peer reviewed
journal) on basis of findings 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

11. 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
Amount
Requested
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 weeks
13/4/15 – 22/4/15
$3,587.44
Total Personnel $3,587.44
Maintenance
Targeted Facebook advertising for recruiting participants – running two
weeks
$500.00
Total Maintenance $500.00
In-Kind Costs
Maximum of 1 post/day on the Unicef Facebook page to advertise the
survey for Study 1
nil
Total In-Kind Costs nil
Total Cost for 2015 $4,087.44
Year 02-02-2015 – 11-12-2015
Costs
Amount
Requested
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 weeks
25/1/16 – 8/4/16
$7,174.87
Total Personnel $7,174.87
Maintenance
Social media web developer to set up two Facebook charity pages $5,000
Graphic design to create profile pic graphic and banner image $500.00
Total Maintenance $5,500.00
In-Kind Costs

12. Access to the Unicef potential donors database for recruitment in Study 2 nil
Maximum two Unicef volunteers to call potential donors database for a
maximum of three weeks for recruitment in Study 2
6/1/16 – 22/1/16
nil
Total In-Kind Costs nil
Other Costs
Payment of $5/participant as a compensation for their time x 100
participants
$500.00
Total Other Costs $500.00
Total 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

13. 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.

14. 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

15. 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.