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 https://ecosoberhouse.com/article/cognitive-dissonance-treatment-in-sober-living/ of which are in our awareness but most are not (Marx, 1976). Festinger (Festinger, 1962) theorised that a pair of cognitive elements may relate to each other in three ways.
- This is particularly true if the disparity between their beliefs and behaviors involves something that is central to their sense of self.
- Based on this intellectual tradition, Festinger was able to predict the magnitude of dissonance in different situations.
- As a classic result in dissonance studies, they were also expected to report more positive attitudes toward the counterattitudinal topic.
- Participants had no time limit to write their essay and it was emphasized that the content of their essay was the main focus of the research.
It is possible to resolve cognitive dissonance by either changing one’s behavior or changing one’s beliefs so they are consistent with each other. One of the features that distinguished https://ecosoberhouse.com/ 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. Mismatches between your beliefs and actions can lead to feelings of discomfort (and, sometimes, coping choices that have negative impacts), but such feelings can also sometimes lead to change and growth.
How to resolve cognitive dissonance
In this paradigm, a plausible explanation is offered to participants to justify their discomfort. For instance, in their seminal paper, Zanna and Cooper’s participants had to ingest a placebo pill that allegedly induced a negative mood. Because of this belief, participants in the dissonance condition were inclined to misattribute their psychological discomfort to the pill instead of the inconsistency, and thus they did not show any use of an inconsistency reduction strategy.
First, it is unclear if the emotion captured in these studies is really the theorized CDS or a confound with other negative emotions. This is especially the case when the assessment is only based on measures that cannot assess a specific state, such as facial activity or the “calm-tense” item used by Zanna and Cooper (1974). This is problematic because many cognitive dissonance paradigms are likely to induce negative emotions other than the CDS. Consequently, when reviewing the main cognitive dissonance paradigms, Kenworthy et al. (2011) conclude that guilt could be the most important mediator of common cognitive dissonance effects. Depending on the paradigms used, anger and surprise are two other emotions that are likely to be confounded with cognitive dissonance (Geschwender, 1967; Noordewier & Breugelmans, 2013). While this particular debate is beyond the scope of this article, we invite consideration of the question.
Consider the importance of dissonant thoughts
Sometimes, the ways that people resolve cognitive dissonance contribute to unhealthy behaviors or poor decisions. To deal with the feelings of discomfort then, they might find some way of rationalizing the conflicting cognition. For instance, they may justify their sedentary behavior by saying that their other healthy behaviors—like eating sensibly and occasionally exercising—make up for their largely sedentary lifestyle. For example, behaving in ways that are not aligned with your personal values may result in intense feelings of discomfort. Your behavior contradicts not just the beliefs you have about the world, but also the beliefs that you have about yourself. The inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort.
It’s like the person who drives more slowly when a police officer is nearby but ignores speed limits once officers are no longer present. As a speaker, if you want to increase cognitive dissonance, you need to make sure that your audience doesn’t feel coerced or manipulated, but rather that they can clearly see that they have a choice of whether to be persuaded. To resolve cognitive dissonance, a person can aim to ensure that their actions are consistent with their values or vice versa. However, participants who were only paid $1 had more trouble justifying their actions to themselves—they didn’t want to admit to themselves that they told a lie over such a small amount of money. Consequently, participants in this group ended up reducing the dissonance they felt another way—by reporting that the study had indeed been interesting. In other words, it appears that participants reduced the dissonance they felt by deciding that they hadn’t lied when they said the study was enjoyable and that they really had liked the study.
Limits on the Evidences for Cognitive Dissonance Aversiveness
While cognitive dissonance is often described as something widely and regularly experienced, efforts to capture it in studies don’t always work, so it could be less common than has been assumed. People do not necessarily experience discomfort in response to every apparent contradiction in their thoughts and beliefs. Notice that dissonance theory does not state that these modes of dissonance reduction will actually work, only that individuals who are in a state of cognitive dissonance will take steps to reduce the extent of their dissonance. Dissonance can also be experienced vicariously through people of a social group that we identify with.
In A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957), Leon Festinger proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. In psychology, cognitive dissonance occurs when a person holds contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, and is typically experienced as psychological stress when they participate in an action that goes against one or more of them. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.
If the CDS is a specific state, then instruments should allow the CDS to be distinguished from other negative emotions. 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 can forcefully motivate a person to promptly address the psychological discomforts, while small levels of dissonance may not be as effective in encouraging the person to take an immediate action. The minimal tensions rather build up gradually over time before they are addressed (Festinger, 1962).