What is cognitive dissonance? |

Introduction

Cognitive dissonance theory, developed by social psychologist Leon Festinger, suggests that there is a basic human tendency to strive for consistency between and among cognitions. Cognitions are defined as what people know about their attitudes and behaviors. An attitude is defined as one’s positive or negative evaluations of a person, place, or thing. If an inconsistency does arise—for example, if an individual does something that is discrepant with his or her attitudes—cognitive dissonance is said to occur. Dissonance is an uncomfortable state of physiological and psychological tension. It is so uncomfortable, in fact, that when individuals are in such a state, they become motivated to rid themselves of the feeling. This can be done by restoring consistency to the cognitions in some way.

What exactly does dissonance feel like? Although it is difficult to describe any kind of internal state, the reactions one has when one hurts the feelings of a loved one or breaks something belonging to someone else are probably what Festinger meant by dissonance.

Restoring Consonance

When in a state of dissonance, there are three ways a person can restore consistency or, in the language of the theory, consonance. Consonance is defined as the psychological state in which cognitions are not in conflict. One way to create consonance is to reduce the importance of the conflicting cognitions. The theory states that the amount of dissonance experienced is a direct function of the importance of the conflicting cognitions. Consider, for example, a person who actively pursues a suntan. The potential for dissonance exists with such behavior, because the cognition “I am doing something that is increasing my chances for skin cancer” may be in conflict with the cognition “I would like to remain healthy and live a long life.” To reduce dissonance, this person may convince him- or herself that he or she would rather live a shorter life filled with doing enjoyable and exciting things than live a longer, but perhaps not so exciting, life. The inconsistency still exists, but the importance of the inconsistency has been reduced.

A second way to reduce dissonance is to add numerous consonant cognitions, thus making the discrepancy seem less great. The suntanner may begin to believe he or she needs to be tan to be socially accepted because all of his or her friends have tans. The tanner may also begin to believe that suntanning makes him or her look healthier and more attractive and, indeed, may even come to believe that suntanning does promote health.

The last method Festinger proposed for reducing dissonance is the simplest, and it is the one that caught the attention of many social psychologists. It is simply to change one of the discrepant cognitions. The suntanner could either stop suntanning or convince him- or herself that suntanning is not associated with an increased risk of skin cancer. In either case, the inconsistency would be eliminated.

This latter possibility intrigued social psychologists because it offered the possibility that people’s behaviors could influence their attitudes. In particular, it suggested that if someone does something that is inconsistent with his or her attitudes, those attitudes may change to become more consistent with the behavior. For example, imagine that a person wanted a friend to favor a particular candidate in an upcoming election, and the friend favored the opposing candidate. What would happen if this person convinced the friend to accompany him or her to a rally for the candidate the friend did not support? According to the theory, the friend should experience some degree of dissonance, as the behavior of attending a rally for candidate X is inconsistent with the attitude “I do not favor candidate X.” To resolve the inconsistency, the friend may well begin to convince him- or herself that candidate X is not so bad and actually has some good points. Thus, in an effort to restore consonance, the friend’s attitudes have changed to be more consistent with behavior.

Dissonance-Induced Attitude Change

Changes in behavior cannot always be expected to lead to changes in attitudes. Dissonance-induced attitude change—that is, the adjustment of one's attitude in an effort to be consistent with a behavior—is likely to happen only under certain conditions. For one, there must not be any external justification for the behavior. An external justification is an environmental cause that might explain the inconsistency. If the friend was paid a hundred dollars to attend the rally for the candidate or was promised a dinner at a fancy restaurant, he or she most likely would not have experienced dissonance, because he or she had a sufficient external justification. Dissonance is most likely to occur when no external justification is present for a behavior.

Second, dissonance is most likely to occur when individuals believe that the behavior was done of their own free will—that is, when they feel some sort of personal responsibility for the behavior. If the friend had been simply told that he or she was being taken out for an exciting evening and was not told that they were going to this candidate’s rally until they got there, the friend most likely would not have experienced dissonance.

Third, dissonance is more likely to occur when the behavior has some sort of foreseeable negative consequences. If the friend knew that each person who attended the rally was required to pay a donation or hand out pamphlets for the candidate and yet still elected to go, he or she would probably have experienced considerable dissonance; now the friend is not only attending a rally for a candidate he or she opposes but also actively campaigning against his or her preferred candidate.

Effect of Rewards

Perhaps the most-researched application of dissonance theory concerns how attitudes are affected by rewarding people for doing things in which they do not believe. In one study, Festinger and J. M. Carlsmith had students perform a boring screw-turning task for one hour. They then asked the students to tell another student waiting to do the same task that the task was very interesting. In other words, they asked the students to lie. Half the students were offered twenty dollars to do this; the other half were offered one dollar. After the students told the waiting student that the task was enjoyable, the researchers asked them what they really thought about the screw-turning task. The students who were paid twenty dollars said they thought the screw-turning task was quite boring. The students who were paid only one dollar, however, said that they thought the task was interesting and enjoyable.

Although surprising, these findings are precisely what dissonance theory predicts. When a student informed a waiting student that the task was enjoyable, the possibility for dissonance arose. The cognition “This task was really boring” is inconsistent with the cognition “I just told someone that this task was quite enjoyable.” The students paid twenty dollars, however, had a sufficient external justification for the inconsistency, so there was no dissonance and no need to resolve any inconsistency. The students paid one dollar, however, did not have the same external justification; most people would not consider a dollar to be sufficient justification for telling a lie, so these students were in a real state of dissonance. To resolve the inconsistency, they changed their attitudes about the task and convinced themselves that the task was indeed enjoyable, thereby achieving consonance between attitudes and behavior. Thus, the less people are rewarded for doing things they might not like, the more likely it is that they will begin to like them.

Effect of Punishment

Dissonance theory makes equally interesting predictions about the effects of punishment. In a study by Elliot Aronson and Carlsmith, a researcher asked preschool children to rate the attractiveness of toys. The researcher then left the room, but, before leaving, he instructed the children not to play with one of the toys they had rated highly attractive. This became the “forbidden” toy. The researcher varied the severity of the punishment with which he threatened the children if they played with the forbidden toy. For some children, the threat was relatively mild: the researcher said he would be upset. For others, the threat was more severe: the researcher said that he would be angry, would pack up the toys and leave, and would consider the child a baby.

Both threats of punishment seemed to work, as no children played with the forbidden toy. When the researcher asked the children later to rerate the attractiveness of the toys, however, it was apparent that the severity of the threat did make a difference. For children who were severely threatened, the forbidden toy was still rated as quite attractive. For the mildly threatened children, however, the forbidden toy was rated as much less attractive.

By not playing with the forbidden toy, children were potentially in a state of dissonance. The cognition “I think this is an attractive toy” is inconsistent with the cognition “I am not playing with the toy.” Those in the severe-threat condition had a sufficient external justification for the discrepancy. Hence, there was no dissonance and no motivation to resolve the inconsistency. Those in the mild-threat condition had no such external justification for the inconsistency, so they most likely felt dissonance, and they resolved it by convincing themselves that the toy was not so attractive. Thus, perhaps surprisingly, the more mild the threats used to get children not to do something, the more likely it is that they will come to believe that it is not something they even want to do.

Role of Decision Making

A last type of everyday behavior for which dissonance theory has implications is decision making. According to the theory, many times when one makes a decision, particularly between attractive alternatives, dissonance is likely to occur. Before making a decision, there are probably some features of each alternative that are attractive and some that are not so attractive. When the decision is made, two sets of dissonant cognitions result: “I chose something that has unattractive qualities” and “I did not choose something that has attractive qualities.” To resolve this dissonance, people tend to convince themselves that the chosen alternative is clearly superior to the unchosen alternative. Because of this, although each alternative was seen as equally attractive before the decision was made, after the decision, the chosen alternative is seen as much more attractive.

For example, Robert Knox and James Inkster went to a racetrack and asked a sample of people who were waiting in line to place their bets how confident they were that their horse was going to win. They then asked a sample of people who were leaving the betting window the same question. As might have been predicted by now, a bettor was much more confident about a horse’s chances after having placed the bet. Before placing a bet, there is no dissonance. After actually placing money on the horse, the potential for dissonance (“I placed money on a horse that might lose and I did not bet on a horse that might win”) arises. To avoid or resolve this dissonance, bettors become much more confident that their horse will win and, by default, more confident that other horses will not.

Prominent Influence in Psychology

Cognitive dissonance theory was introduced in 1957, at a time when social psychologists' interest in the motives underlying people’s attitudes and behaviors was at a peak. Although dissonance theory has emerged as perhaps the best-known and most-researched theory in social psychology, when it was first developed it was one of a handful of theories, now collectively known as cognitive consistency theories, that proposed that people are motivated to seek consistency among and between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors.

There are numerous explanations for why cognitive dissonance theory has become as important as it has, but two seem particularly intriguing. One concerns the intellectual climate in psychology during the time the theory was introduced. At the time, research in most fields of psychology, including social psychological research on attitude change, was influenced by learning theory. Learning theory suggests that behavior is a function of its consequences: people do those things for which they are rewarded and do not do those things for which they are not rewarded or for which they are punished. Therefore, according to this perspective, to significantly change any form of behavior, from overt actions to attitudes and beliefs, some kind of reward or incentive needs to be offered. The bigger the incentive (or the stronger the punishment), the more change can be expected. Research on attitude change, therefore, also focused on the role of rewards and punishment. What made dissonance theory stand out was its prediction that sometimes less reward or incentive will lead to more change. This counterintuitive prediction, standing in stark contrast to the generally accepted ideas about the roles of reward and punishment, brought immediate attention to dissonance theory not only from the social-psychological community but also from the psychological community in general, and it quickly vaulted the theory to a position of prominence.

A second reason dissonance has become such an important theory has to do with its particular influence on the field of social psychology. Before the theory was introduced, social psychology was identified with the study of groups and intergroup relations. Dissonance theory was one of the first social psychological theories to emphasize the cognitive processes occurring within the individual as an important area of inquiry. As a result, interest in the individual waxed in social psychology, and interest in groups waned. Indeed, the study of groups and intergroup relations began, in part, to be considered the province of sociologists, and the study of the individual in social settings began to define social psychology. Thus, dissonance theory can be credited with significantly changing the focus of research and theory in social psychology.

Bibliography

Allahyani, Mariam Hameed Ahmed. "The Relationship between Cognitive Dissonance and Decision-Making Styles in a Sample of Female Students at the University of Umm Al Qura." Education 132.3 (2012): 641–63. Print.

Aronson, Elliot. “The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 4. Ed. Leonard Berkowitz. New York: Academic, 1969. 2–34. Print.

Cooper, Joel. Cognitive Dissonance: Fifty Years of a Classic Theory. Newbury Park: Sage, 2007. Print.

Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford: Stanford UP, 1957. Print.

Gawronski, Bertram. "Back to the Future of Dissonance Theory: Cognitive Consistency as a Core Motive." Social Cognition 30.6 (2012): 652–68. Print.

Harmon-Jones, Eddie, and Judson Mills, eds. Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. Washington: APA, 1999. Print.

Martinie, Marie-Amélie, Laurent Milland, and Thierry Olive. "Some Theoretical Considerations on Attitude, Arousal and Affect during Cognitive Dissonance." Social and Personality Psychology Compass 7.9 (2013): 680–88. Print.

McClure, John. Explanations, Accounts, and Illusions: A Critical Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1991. Print.

Tavris, Carol, and Elliot Aronson. Mistakes Were Made (but Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts. Orlando: Harcourt, 2007. Print.