Download Cognitive Dissonance Theory and more Lecture notes Cognitive Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive dissonance theory aims to explain the relationships between the
motivation, perceptions and cognitions of an individual.
By
Theory Factsheet
Proposed By: Festinger, 1962
Related Theories: Social Exchange Theory, Force Compliance Theory, Fairness Theories, Self-perception Theory, Balance Theory, Cost-benefit Analysis, Self-discrepancy Theory, Confirmation Bias, Coping Behaviour Theories, Sensemaking, Echo Chambers, Resistance to Change
Discipline: Psychology
Unit of Analysis: Individual
Level: Micro-level
Type: Theory for Explaining
Operationalised: Qualitatively/Quantitatively
Introduction
Cognitive dissonance theory was first presented by Leon Festinger in 1957 in order to explain the relationships between the motivation, perceptions and cognitions of an individual (Festinger, 1962). It clarified the conditions that motivate individuals to change their opinions, attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. Festinger (Festinger, 1962) defined the ‘cognition’ as any piece of knowledge that an individual has about themself or their environment. The theory was based on the belief that people strive toward consistency within themselves and are driven to make changes to reduce or eliminate an inconsistency (Cooper, 2007). Cognitive dissonance theory began by postulating that pairs of cognitions can be either relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cogni tions are relevant and concurring, there is consonance. However, if two cognitions are relevant, but conflicting, the existence of dissonance would cause psychological discomfort and motivate the individual to act upon this. The greater the magnitude of dissonance, the greater the pressure for the individual to reduce the dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). The existence of dissonance and the mechanisms that humans used to cope with it captured Festinger’s interest in developing cognitive dissonance theory.
The concept of cognition was relatively new at the time of the introduction of cognitive dissonance theory. Before that, the relationship between human attitudes and behaviours was understood as a complex process that involved motivational, emotional, affective and perceptual factors
(9780259877226; 9780300001969). Therefore, the theory was one of the breakthroughs for research in the psychology field as it revolutionised thinking about human psychological processes. More specifically, the theory explains how rewards affect attitudes and behaviours and how behaviours and motivations affect cognitions and perceptions (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007). Although the concepts of harmony and conflict were not new and had been proposed earlier by Heider (Heider, 1946), Cognitive Dissonance theory made a major contribution to the concept of consistency (Cooper, 2007). The theory is different compared to other consistency theories as it defines dissonance and consonance in relation to a specific cognition, which usually is related to a behaviour (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007). Cognitive Dissonance theory made it possible to identify the determinants of attitudes and beliefs, the internalisation of values, the consequences of decisions, the effects of disagreement among individuals and other important psychological processes (Mills & Harmon-Jones, 1999). Hence, the theory received good attention from scholars in its early days, due to its few fundamental and uncomplicated principles, which could make novel and non-obvious predictions.
Theory
Cognitive Dissonance theory has two basic underlying hypotheses:
The existence of a dissonance will cause mental discomfort and motivate the individual to
reduce the dissonance and restore consonance To reduce the dissonance, the individual will
try to reduce it as well as avoid situations or information that are likely to increase the
dissonance
In simple terms, a dissonance is an inconsistency in cognitive elements, which can be knowledge, opinions, beliefs, or the behaviours of an individual. The existence of such inconsistency causes mental discomfort and motivates the individual to take some actions to reduce or eliminate it. We have millions of cognitions, many of which are in our awareness but most are not (9783642840159). Festinger (Festinger, 1962) theorised that a pair of cognitive elements may relate to each other in three ways. Firstly, two cognitive elements may be relevant and consonant. Secondly, two cognitive elements may be relevant but dissonant. However, identification of the relationship may also be difficult, as two elements may be dissonant in one context, but not in another (Festinger, 1962). Dissonance can arise from many sources, including, but not limited to, logical inconsistency, cultural differences, contradictions between specific opinions and their related general stand, and a disconfirmation of a past experience to a current situation (9783642840159). Lastly, two elements can be irrelevant to each other. The is a case when a pair of cognitive elements does not imply anything concerning one another. Once again, it can be challenging to deduce such a relationship because two elements may be indirectly linked. Therefore, researchers have to consider or make a reference to other cognitions before deriving a conclusion (Festinger, 1962).
One of the features that distinguished cognitive dissonance theory from other consistency theories was the concept of dissonance magnitude. The magnitude of dissonance depends on the number and importance of cognitions that the person experiences a consonance or dissonance with. Its calculation is summarised in the mathematical expression below (Festinger, 1962). The total tension of a dissonance is the proportion of the inconsistent cognitions to the consistent cognitions that one has, each weighted by its importance.
The formula conveys that the greater the amount or importance of dissonant cognitions and the smaller the number or importance of consonant elements the greater the magnitude of dissonance one experiences. The tension of a dissonance can fluctuate over time and does not follow a uniform pattern (Koller & Salzberger, 2012). However, the theory proposed that higher levels of dissonance
psychological discomfort. The study found that the participants preferred trivialisation when the pre-existing attitudes or an important issue were made salient. In addition, Simon et al. (10.1037/0022?3514.68.2.247) also proposed trivialisation as a process involving self-affirmation. Once someone reaffirms themselves about their important value, the person weakens the importance of a discrepant act and reasserts the sense of self-integrity (10.1037/0022?3514.45.1.5).
Denial of responsibility: A sense of responsibility for one’s cognitions triggers the experience of dissonance (McGrath, 2017). Gosling, Denizeau and Oberlé (10.1037/0022?3514.90.5.722) empirically investigated this mode of dissonance reduction and confirmed its effectiveness. The results of the study suggested that denial of responsibility could even be more efficient than trivialisation in dealing with dissonance, especially when it is associated with feelings of shame and guilt.
Adding consonant cognitions: Inconsistent behaviours may be rationalised by adding new consonant cognitions to one’s belief system. A considerable number of empirical studies have demonstrated how people seek out new information and external justification to support their position. For example, participants searched for more supporting arguments after experiencing discomfort from writing a counter-attitudinal essay (10.1016/0092?6566(80)90009?4) or participating in a boring experiment (Brock & Balloun, 1967; 10.1016/0022?1031(78)90066?5). Furthermore, overconfidence in one’s position may also help add a consonant cognition and reduce dissonance (Knox & Inkster, XXXX; Blanton et al., 2001).
Changing behaviour: Although Festinger (p. 384) (Mills & Harmon-Jones, 1999) suggested that “one of the major avenues of dissonance reduction is to change your behaviour”, the approach often may not be the most convenient way. To be specific, behaviours can be difficult to change when they involve pain and loss, addiction or are simply irreversible (Festinger, 1962). Howev er, many studies have successfully demonstrated a mechanism for positive behaviour change as a result of a dissonance arousal (10.1111/j.1559?1816.1992.tb00928.x;Focella et al., 2016;Fried & Aronson, 1995;Fointiat, 2004). Yet, limited research has investigated the behavioural change together with other dissonance reduction strategies (McGrath, 2017). Therefore, it is unclear whether people will actually change their behaviour when other reduction modes are also available.
Act rationalisation: Act rationalisation has been discussed in previous research as an alternative behaviour reduction mode (Beauvois & Joule, 1996) (Joule & Beauvois, 1997). The approach concerns using a new problematic behaviour that is consistent with a previous action to reduce dissonance. For example, smokers who agreed to abstain from smoking for a short period tended to agree to a second and longer abstinence period (Beauvois, Joule & Brunetti, 1993). The participation in the longer abstinence period made the first abstinence period seem less problematic, and this reduced dissonance.
Only scant research has investigated multiple dissonance reduction strategies simultaneously (McGrath, 2017). However, in general, the likelihood that a particular cognition will change is determined by its resistance to change, which is based on its responsiveness to reality and the extent to which it is consonant with other cognitions (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). Therefore, changes are more likely to happen in an element that is less resistant or less important (Cooper, 2007). However, an attempt to reduce a dissonance is not always successful. An individual may fail to restore a consonance, if there is a lack of social support and new harmonious elements, or the existing problematic element is too satisfying (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007).
When cognitive dissonance theory was first presented, three experimental paradigms (namely decision justification, effort justification and induced compliance behaviour) were used to empirically test and provide evidence to support the theory.
Decision justification : Brehm (Brehm, 1956) applied the theory to examine dissonance in decision making. According to the theory, when an individual evaluates a decision, all of the cognitions that support the decision promote consonance, while cognitions that conflict with the selected choice trigger dissonance. The greater the amount and importance of the conflicting cognitions and the lesser the amount and importance of the supportive cognitions the higher degree of dissonan ce an individual would experience, and vice versa. Dissonance that is aroused when evaluating a decision can be reduced by viewing the selected choice as more attractive or the rejected alternatives as less attractive. Brehm also suggested that the degree of dissonance is more severe with a difficult decision when choices are close in attractiveness. An individual is more likely to change his or her attitude to be more negative towards the rejected alternatives after a difficult decision, while being unlikely to change the attitude if the attractiveness of the options is not comparable.
Effort justification: Dissonance arises when an individual invests a great amount of effort into a task, but gets an undesirable outcome. The more undesirable the outcome, the higher the degree of dissonance. The classic experimental design in effort justification was undertaken by Aronson and Mills (Aronson & Mills, 1959). In this study, the researchers divided the participants into groups and set them to undergo different levels of embarrassment to examine how they would deal with the experiment. The results showed that the participants who experienced mild embarrassment perceived the activity to be dull and boring, while the others who underwent a severely embarrassing moment thought the activity was interesting. The experiment demonstrated that an individual could reduce the psychological discomfort by convincing him or herself that the task is interesting and the outcome is worthwhile to eliminate dissonance and achieve consonance.
Induced compliance behaviour: Festinger and CarlsmithFestinger & Carlsmith, XXXX) used cognitive dissonance theory to study induced compliance behaviours. They set up an experimental study and asked participants to undertake a boring task for an hour. Then, the participants were rewarded either $1 or $20. The group that was compensated with a higher amount of money did not experience much dissonance, while the other group had to change their attitude and convinced themselves that the task was interesting to counter the aroused dissonance. In cognitive dissonance theory, monetary compensation can be viewed as a supportive cognition that promotes consonance. Therefore, an individual would experience minimal to no dissonance when the amount or importance of the supportive cognitions is great enough. On the other hand, if the supportive cognitions are not large or strong enough to counter the dissonance, the individual would be motivated to change attitude to be more positive as a justification for the counter-attitudinal behaviour.
Although many studies have focused on a single dissonance reduction strategy (Festinger & Carlsmith, XXXX;Aronson & Mills, 1959;Brehm, 1956), it is important to note that people may simultaneously adopt multiple strategies to counter the dissonance. This practice is commonly studied in relation to coping strategies. For example, a recent study (Mahapatra & Mishra, XXXX) showed that customers who faced post-consumption cognitive dissonance took multiple actions to negate the experienced psychological discomfort. They sought support from like-minded people and mentally disconnected from the negative situation to reduce the negative emotions.
In summary, Cognitive Dissonance theory has contributed to the concept of consistency in s everal ways. Firstly, Festinger integrated various concepts, including attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, value and behaviours, which had been considered separately as a single construct of cognition. This treatment made it possible for scholars to understand the psychological process as a whole. Secondly, Festinger viewed people’s mental states in a social environment from an intellectual tradition, which was influenced by Kurt Lewin, rather than a Gestalt tradition as Heider did (Cooper, 2007). This intellectual tradition proposed that people navigated the world by motivational pushes and pulls, and therefore our behaviours were driven by psychological forces. Based on this
several scholars argued that dissonance was more complicated than as presented by the Cognitive Dissonance theory and not easy to create in an experiment, which also raised concerned over the experimental paradigms that have been used to demonstrate the theory (Chapanis & Chapanis, 1964; 978-0023768705). In response to the limitations of the theory, three re visions of cognitive dissonance theory have been proposed. Firstly, the self-consistency model (9780528624803; Aronson, XXXX) addressed the paradox of the simplicity of the original theory by adding self -concept as a further explanation of dissonance. Secondly, the self-affirmation model (Berkowitz, July 1988) focused on the overall self-image of moral and adaptive adequacy as an alternative explanation for attitude change. Lastly, the aversive consequences model (also commonly known as ”a new look at dissonance ”) (Cooper & Fazio, 1984) also presented an alternative view on mental discomfort. This model proposed that the psychological stress was caused by the feeling of being self-responsible for inducing aversive consequences, rather than the inconsistency in cognitive elements.
Concepts
Cognition (Independent): An opinion, knowledge or belief about the environment, about
oneself, or about one's behaviour. (Festinger, 1962)
Cognitive Dissonance (Dependent): The existence of non-fitting relations among cognitions.
(Festinger, 1962)
Cognitive Dissonance Reduction (Dependent): The existence of dissonance causes
psychological discomfort and motivates the individual to act upon this by changing their
opinions, attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. (Festinger, 1962)
References
Aronson, E. & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 592, 177-181.
Aronson, E. (XXXX). Dissonance, hypocrisy, and the self-concept. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. , 103-126.
Auster, D. (1965). Attitude Change and Cognitive Dissonance. Journal of Marketing Research , 24, 401-405.
Beauvois, J. & Joule, R. (1996). A radical dissonance theory.
Beauvois, J., Joule, R. & Brunetti, F. (1993). Cognitive Rationalization and Act Rationalization in an Escalation of Commitment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 141, 1-17.
Berkowitz, L. (July 1988). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology: Social Psychological Studies of the Self.
Bhave, D.P. & Glomb, T.M. (2016). The Role of Occupational Emotional Labor Requirements on the Surface Acting–Job Satisfaction Relationship. Journal of Management , 423, 722-741.
Blanton, H., Pelham, B.W., DeHart, T. & Carvallo, M. (2001). Overconfidence as Dissonance Reduction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 375, 373-385.
Boswell, W.R., Boudreau, J.W. & Tichy, J. (XXXX). The Relationship Between Employee Job Change and Job Satisfaction: The Honeymoon-Hangover Effect. Journal of Applied Psychology , 905, 882-892.
Brehm, J.W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 523, 384-389.
Brock, T.C. & Balloun, J.L. (1967). Behavioral receptivity to dissonant information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 64, Pt.1, 413-428.
Chapanis, N.P. & Chapanis, A. (1964). Cognitive dissonance. Psychological Bulletin , 611, 1-22.
Cohen, J.B. & Goldberg, M.E. (1970). The Dissonance Model in Post-Decision Product Evaluation. Journal of Marketing Research , 73, 315.
Cooper, J. & Fazio, R.H. (1984). A New Look at Dissonance Theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 229-266.
Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance.
Davis, K.E. & Jones, E.E. (XXXX). Changes in interpersonal perception as a means of reducing cognitive dissonance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 613, 402-410.
Devine, P.G., Tauer, J.M., Barron, K.E., Elliot, A.J. & Vance, K.M. (XXXX). Movi ng beyond attitude change in the study of dissonance-related processes. Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. , 297-323.
Donnelly, J.H. & Ivancevich, J.M. (1970). Post-Purchase Reinforcement and Back-Out Behavior. Journal of Marketing Research , 73, 399-400.
Engel, J.F. (1963). Are Automobile Purchasers Dissonant Consumers?. Journal of Marketing , 272, 55.
Festinger, L. & Carlsmith, J.M. (XXXX). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 582, 203-210.
Festinger, L. (1962). A theory of cognitive dissonance.
Festinger, L. (January 1, 1957). Contemporary Approaches to Cognition.
Focella, E.S., Stone, J., Fernandez, N.C., Cooper, J. & Hogg, M.A. (2016). Vicarious hypocrisy: Bolstering attitudes and taking action after exposure to a hypocritical ingroup member. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 62, 89-102.
Fointiat, V. (2004). “I KNOW WHAT I HAVE TO DO, BUT…” WHEN HYPOCRISY LEADS TO BEHAVIORAL CHANGE. Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal , 328, 741-746.
Fried, C.B. & Aronson, E. (1995). Hypocrisy, Misattribution, and Dissonance Reduction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 219, 925-933.
Gbadamosi, A. (2009). Cognitive dissonance. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management , 3712, 1077-1095.
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V.H. & Chen, S. (1995). Commission, Omission, and Dissonance Reduction: Coping with Regret in the "Monty Hall" Problem. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 212, 182-190.
Osgood, C.E. (1960). Cognitive Dynamics in the Conduct of Human Affairs. Public Opinion Quarterly , 242, Special Issue: Attitude Change, 341.
Stoverink, A.C., Umphress, E.E., Gardner, R.G. & Miner, K.N. (XXXX). Misery loves company: Team dissonance and the influence of supervisor-focused interpersonal justice climate on team cohesiveness. Journal of Applied Psychology , 996, 1059-1073.
Vroom, V.H. & Deci, E.L. (1971). The stability of post-decision dissonance: A follow-up study of the job attitudes of business school graduates. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 61, 36-49.
Wilder, D.A. (1992). Yes, Elliot, There Is Dissonance. Psychological Inquiry , 34, 351-352.
Zajonc, R.B. (XXXX). The process of cognitive tuning in communication. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 612, 159-167.
Last updated: 2021-11-24 15:24:38 - Exported: 2021-11-25 14:54:
Legal: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. The TheoryHub is an open access resource which means that all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Users are allowed to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. For more information please visit: https://open.ncl.ac.uk.
