Rhea has two sons. She promises to give incentives to her sons for weeding the garden every Sunday. Her elder son, Aaron, gets $1 an hour, whereas her younger son, John, gets $5 an hour for the same task. Contrary to her expectation, Rhea notices that although Aaron is paid less for the task and has probably experienced more dissonance than John, he does a better job than John. In this scenario, Aaron's attitude toward the task exemplifies:
A. the insufficient justification effect.
B. the less-is-better effect.
C. the bystander effect.
D. the picture superiority effect.

The insufficient justification effect tries to offer an explanation to why individuals facing cognitive dissonance still deal with the situation causing the dissonance. Cognitive dissonance happens when individuals find themselves in conflict. Maybe they believe in something but are forced to see that belief as incorrect, for instance. That will cause a discomfort - dissonance - that will only go away when the person involved changes something about the situation or their beliefs.

One way to make cognitive dissonance go away is by finding an internal explanation to something when the external explanation is clearly insufficient. That is what Aaron has done. There is no reason for his brother to make more money than he does for doing the same task. Aaron, however, has overcome the discomfort caused by the situation. He might have decided, for example, that he is not doing it for the money, that the task is fun, or that it feels nice to help. He has found an interior justification - the insufficient justification effect.