The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm

Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) had children

sitting individually in a lab. They told each

child that they are now going out for a

moment, and that the child may play with

one of two toys, but is forbidden to play

with the other, very attractive toy until the

experimenter is back.

Contributor © POSbase 2005

The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm

© POSbase 2005

There were two conditions:

In the mild threat condition, the experimenter

told the child not to touch the attractive toy until

he is back, with only mild threats.

In the severe threat condition, the experimenter

threatened to leave the room with all the toys

and to think that the child is a baby.

After the experimenter came back, children had to

evaluate the forbidden toy.

The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm

© POSbase 2005

Children in the severe threat condition

evaluated the toy more positively than

the children in the mild threat condition.

The authors explained this finding with

the need to reduce cognitive dissonance

which was aroused by not playing with

what one likes most.

The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm

© POSbase 2005

Dissonance was higher for children in the mild threat

condition because they had less justification to leave

the toy untouched than children in the severe threat

condition.

Therefore, children in the mild threat condition

adjusted their attitude towards their behavior and

felt the forbidden toy to be less attractive than the

severe threat condition.

The Forbidden-Toy Paradigm

© POSbase 2005

This study is a variant of the induced-compliance

paradigm (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959).

It helps explaining why children like to play with

forbidden toys (see Freedman, 1965). According

to the present study, parents who want to induce

a stable attitude should not punish too harshly,

because the attitude rebounds if the threat of

punishment – and with it the justification to obey

– is taken away.