Table of Contents
Cognitive Dissonance
Here in this post, we are discussing “Cognitive Dissonance”. You can read more about psychology-related material on our website. Keep visiting Psychology Roots.
Cognitive Dissonance
An area of psychology concerned with how people (and organisations) make sense of and deal with contradictions between their own or others’ beliefs and the actions they do.
Leon Festinger initially presented the cognitive dissonance hypothesis in his 1957 book, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, and it quickly became one of the most important ideas in social psychology. Festinger’s thesis emerged from an experiment he and his colleagues ran to better understand the tensions that might arise when trying to reconcile one’s views with one’s actions. According to the hypothesis, when people experience cognitive dissonance—a state of mental or emotional stress caused by incongruence between their beliefs and actions—they seek to alleviate it by making adjustments to one or both of the offending factors.
Hypothesis testing
Festinger’s research on a cult led him to develop his theory of cognitive dissonance. A cult was founded by a lady who claimed to have received communications from aliens predicting the end of the world through flood on a certain day and promising rescue via a flying saucer. Members of the cult often abandoned their loved ones, careers, finances, and material goods when they first joined. In order to study the reactions of cult members if the prophesy turns out to be false, Festinger and his colleagues infiltrated the group.
After the prophesy failed, several members of the organisation contacted the media in an effort to proselytise (attempts to entice people into their cult) in the hopes of enlisting new believers to get social support, but before the prophecy failed, most of the group members avoided exposure (consonant elements). Festinger hypothesised that the disproof of the prophesy caused cognitive strain among the believers, and that they sought social support in order to preserve consistency between their thinking and behaviour. As a means of coping with the emotional fallout of the disproven prophesy, the cult grew through recruiting new members.
Compulsory submission as a paradigm
Festinger proposed the forced compliance paradigm after conducting many tests that he believed would expand the cognitive dissonance hypothesis. Researchers discovered that participants who were paid just $1 to lie performed as well as those who were paid $20 to lie were asked to undertake a series of menial jobs and then lie to a third party about how much fun they were having. Festinger said that this was because the better compensated participants had no cognitive dissonance since they had good reason to lie and nothing to lose. Those who were paid just a dollar felt dissonance and, to make their deception more plausible, reframed the menial chores they were doing as pleasant (as the subject believed in it themselves).
The results of the experiment demonstrate that when people are exposed to dissonance, their attitudes shift, most likely becoming less motivating. In this respect, cognitive dissonance theory contradicts most behavioural theories that state that increased incentives are responsible for desirable behavioural changes.
Resolving dissonance
Festinger argued that people and communities use a variety of strategies to deal with cognitive dissonance depending on the specifics of their circumstances. It’s possible to rectify the discord between one’s ideas and actions by adjusting one’s thinking, adjusting one’s behaviour to fit one’s thoughts, adding a thought to explain one’s actions, or just dismissing the issue.
Let’s use X, a 25-year-old college student (and current job seeker) who just decided to become a member of political party Y. He supports the party because he thinks they will deliver on their pledges to improve youth employment and national development if they are elected. The elections go to his party. His party has been in power for five years, but X is still without a job since the work market hasn’t changed. The members of his political party have asked for his help as the next elections get near. What would X do if placed in this predicament?
X’s perspective on the issue is malleable; he only has to take a peek at his two graduate-level neighbours, B and C. In their neighbourhood, they’ve opened a tea and samosa stand. X revises his assessment of the situation and reduces the contradiction in his view after realising that jobs were generated after his party came to power, but not in the usual sense. Despite his shift in outlook, he will continue to support the same political party.
X is in control of his response to the issue because he realises the political party he backed made false promises and chooses not to trust them. As a result, he adjusts his behaviour and outlook on the situation, and decides not to vote for the ruling political party that had duped him into believing in the possibility of improved economic conditions and progress.
X has the ability to provide an idea; he evaluates the policies of his government. Despite the party’s failure to provide employment prospects for young people, it has succeeded in constructing 200-meter-tall statues, a new Supreme Court (building), monuments, and bridges in the previous five years. He adds that although the government has failed to create employment, there has been infrastructure development in the last five years thanks to his party’s rule. When confronted with the cognitive dissonance between his beliefs and actions, he adds a new line of reasoning in favour of the political party. He plans to keep voting for the same party in the next election because he believes that it will deliver on its promise to create jobs for its residents.
X might make light of the contradiction by drawing parallels between his country’s status now that his party is in power and that of economically disadvantaged neighbours. He notes that just 40% of college-educated young people in his nation have jobs, whereas that number is closer to 30% in neighbouring countries. The contradiction between his words and actions is alleviated by his dismissal of problems with his political party’s administration. Since he has established a rationale for his political party’s support, he intends to keep voting for it.
People who embrace competing ideologies often do so by using cognitive dissonance theory to justify their position and minimise internal conflicts. This is especially true in the case of religious and political affiliations.
Cognitive dissonance may be alleviated in a number of ways, but the most common ones include the addition of consonant parts to an argument or the denial of conflicting or inconsistent ideas. This is due to the fact that altering one’s perspective is more manageable than engaging in introspection and reevaluating one’s core values.
Help Us Improve This Article
Have you discovered an inaccuracy? We put out great effort to give accurate and scientifically trustworthy information to our readers. Please notify us if you discover any typographical or grammatical errors.
Make a comment. We acknowledge and appreciate your efforts.
If you have any scale or any material related to psychology kindly share it with us at psychologyroots@gmail.com. We help others on behalf of you.
