Effort Justification Theory

    While looking further into cognitive dissonance theory, the idea of effort justification popped up. This idea states that the more effort you put into achieving a goal, the more you will enjoy achieving that goal because you put so much effort into achieving it. An example of this would be going through hazing for a club or group. Most people probably hate hazing, but will justify all the effort they are putting in to the group because of the high value they now see the group having. Because they put so much effort into being a part of that group, they will also be more loyal to the group. However, opponents to effort justification being the reason people stick through hazing claim that contrast effect is the actual reason why. This theory states that the “farther” away a reward and the barrier that leads to the reward (for example, hazing), it will be preferred because the reward is most likely better than a situation with a small barrier to overcome.
    This idea in social psychology particularly interested me because there are many situations in life where we have to balance whether or not the effort we put into an activity is worth it or not. How do we decide when something is no longer worth the effort? Which theory, in your opinion, makes more sense in justifying situations like hazing? What motivates you to stick through tough situations, the fact that you know that you will be getting a larger reward than a situation where you are suffering less or that you are working towards something high value?