The theory of
Cognitive Dissonance states that when individuals are
presented with information that implies we act in a way that contradicts our
moral standards, we experience discomfort (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1998, P.
191). This is considered Cognitive Dissonance.
A psychological term used to
describe mental conflict that occurs when beliefs or assumptions are
contradicted by new information; arouses unease or tension; relieved by one of
several defensive maneuvers: rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new
information; persuading self that no conflict really exists; reconciling
differences; or resorting to any other defensive means of preserving stability
or order in conception of world and of self; first introduced in 1950s; has
become major point of discussion and research in psychology (as cited in
Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996).
This theory was developed by Leon
Festinger (1957), is concerned with the relationships among cognitions.
Cognition, for the purpose of this theory, may be thought of as a piece of
knowledge, thoughts, feelings, or beliefs. Knowledge may be about an attitude,
an emotion, a behavior, or a value. For instance, the fact that you like the
color red is cognition. People have a massive amount of cognitions at the same
time, and these cognitions create irrelevant, relationships with one another.
Therefore, that the two cognitions have nothing to do with each other. This
occurs most often when we do something that contradicts our moral beliefs.
If dissonance is experienced it is almost always uncomfortable, so the
individual is motivated to reduce it. This causes the individual to identify the
magnitude of their discomfort and, it is possible to predict what we can do to
reduce dissonance. There are three basic ways to reduce dissonance. First are
changing cognitions, an example is if two cognitions don’t relate we can change
one to make it relate to the other; or change each cognition in the direction of
the other. The second is adding cognitions, if two cognitions cause a certain
degree of dissonance, adding one or more cognitions can reduce the degree of
dissonance. The third is altering importance, attempting to justify the behavior
by adding new cognitions. These are the three basic ways of reducing cognitive
dissonance (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1998, P. 192).
Leon Festinger and
James Carlsmith also tested his theory in 1959. They put all the participants
through a dull task. The task consisted in placing a large number of spools on
pegs on a board, turn each spool a quarter turn, take the spool off the pegs and
then put them back on. The subject’s attitudes toward this task were negative.
The participants were then asked to lie about the task to another person.
This person was actually an assistant in the study. The lie was to try to
convince the assistant that the task was actually interesting and fun. The
participants were either given one dollar or twenty dollars for lying about the
task. The experimenters found that those who lied and received the one-dollar
experienced the greatest dissonance, and they were more motivated to seek
cognitive constancy than the participants who received twenty dollars. Those who
received the one-dollar reported to have enjoyed the task more than those who
received the twenty dollars.
There was an inconsistency between the
attitudes of the participants and the behavior. The participants who received
twenty dollars just wanted the money. The larger amount of money provided
external justification for the behavior. There was no dissonance, and the
participants did not need to change their attitudes.
For the subjects who
received only one dollar there was less external justification, and more
dissonance. They reduced their dissonance by changing their attitudes toward the
task. The experimenters then asked the one-dollar group to evaluate the
experiment, and rated the task more fun than the twenty-dollar group, or the
control group. This simply explains cognitive dissonance; the participants
changed their attitudes to make them consistent with behavior. This experiment
shows how easily people rationalize behavior to make them consistent with their
morals. (Price, et al, 1959 pg. 507).
I have an almost perfect example of
cognitive dissonance. One of my really close friends is what you would call a
social smoker. She doesn’t consider herself a smoker; she just does it on
occasion. For example when she is drinking, or stressed. My friend doesn’t think
the typical stereotypes of a smoker correspond to her, she thinks she is
different.
This one time she decided she wanted a cigarette totally out of
the blue, this went against her moral standards. She was experiencing
dissonance; she began to wonder if she really was a smoker, if this could become
a habit like other smokers. Then she began to justify her actions by saying,
“just this one time, it is not like I do this all the time “. She justified her
actions to try make herself feel better about her decision, and got rid of her
dissonance. This is just one of many other solutions she could have chose.
The second possible solution could have been for her to realize how bad
smoking is, how it causes cancer, and you could possibly die. Realizing these
factors also would have persuaded her to quit. The third way of getting rid of
cognitive dissonance would be to add a new cognition such as, “smoking is so
relaxing, and it really calms my nerves”. In all these situations she should rid
herself of cognitive dissonance, this is an example how the cognitive dissonance
theory works in real life situations. In my opinion people without a background
in social psychology would see cognitive dissonance theory, as a form of denial.
It is a way of making themselves believe what they are doing is not wrong.
Cognitive dissonance explains how people change their opinions about
themselves and their environment. It is also concerned with the relationships
and cognitions. When people do something that goes against their belief system,
they experience dissonance. There are ways of resolving this dissonance, which
vary for every person and situation. That is why people reduce dissonance in
different ways.
References
Price, H. R., et
al, (1982). Principles in Psychology. New York : Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Simon, & Schuster (Ed.). (1996). Compton Interactive Encyclopedia (2nd
ed.). Massachusetts : Compton’s New Media.