What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance denotes a situation comprising conflicting behaviors, beliefs, and attitudes. The situation produces mental discomfort, which leads to a change in one of the beliefs, behaviors, or attitudes to decrease the discomfort and reestablish balance. For instance, someone is in a cognitive dissonance situation when they are smoking, yet they are aware that the substance causes cancer. Most people love consistency. They like the assurance that their beliefs and values are always correct. They often like to act in behaviors that are consistent with their beliefs (Carlsmith, 1959). When their behavior is contrary to their beliefs, or their beliefs are defied, it creates dissonance. Since the disagreement is an uncomfortable thing, the individual must either change their attitude, belief, or behavior to decrease dissonance and reestablish balance. Cognitive dissonance causes an uncomfortable feeling that could manifest itself as anxiety, shame, regret, embarrassment, stress, or a feeling of inadequate self-confidence. It clarifies why you get a terrible feeling when you fail to go to the gym for a TV show. The belief that physical exercise is good for fitness and health causes an uncomfortable feeling against your beliefs.  

Leon Festinger was the first individual to investigate the cognitive dissonance theory. The psychologist intruded on a cult where the followers were persuaded that floods would damage the earth before the beginning of 21st December 1954(McLeod, 2008). The cult leader claimed that a flying saucer would take the true believers to a planet called Clarion. Some of the dedicated cult members left their schools, spouses, and jobs and gave out their possessions and money in expectation for the flood. It was terrible for them because the floods never came. But there was a controversy in the entire incident. While the devoted members were persuaded that their faithfulness had saved the world, the non-devoted members who had not given up their possessions and life recognized that the leader of the cult had made fools out of people. Instead of accepting that they had a wrong belief, they looked for ways to describe the events in a manner that conserved their belief system.  

Leon Festinger developed the cognitive dissonance model after conducting numerous experiments. In theory, he states the principle of cognitive consistency that proposes that everyone has an inner drive to clamp all the behaviors and attitudes in harmony and prevent dissonance. Each individual has an internal need to retain their behaviors and beliefs consistently. Any inconsistency brought about by conflicting behaviors and beliefs cause disharmony or tension (Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2007). Something must modify to reduce dissonance whenever there is disharmony between the behaviors or attitudes. Like hunger indicates an action intended to decrease hunger, the disharmony triggered by cognitive dissonance leads to an action predestined to reduce disharmony.  

Cognitive dissonance has an extremely dominant influence on our behaviors and actions since its avoidance is an innate need. It affects our decisions, judgments, and evaluations (Carlsmith, 1959). It also expounds several common but irrational social tendencies like rationalization, justification, and our regularly fluctuating attitudes and beliefs. For example, a person who purchases luxuriously priced utensils from a store when he could have purchased similar utensils at a lesser price in another store persuades themselves that the low-priced utensils are fake to rationalize their buying when there is no difference in the utensils. Likewise, someone who considers that a decent diet is good for health but likes consuming junk foods will have cognitive dissonance. The individual could cut the quantity of junk food they eat every week to lessen the tension. Here, cognitive dissonance has offered motivation for them to adjust to their lifestyle.  

Cognitive Dissonance Research 

A laboratory experiment was first conducted in 1959 by Festinger and Carlsmith to test the cognitive dissonance theory. They examined what could occur if two cognitions do not align, that is, if an individual believes in "Y" but openly claims that they believe in "not Y" (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). They also tested how the amount of reward would affect the level of dissonance. In this research, they asked 71 students to spend an hour on uninteresting tasks, then a few of the partakers were to do a favor and convince a diverse subject that the tasks were enjoyable and exciting. A group of the experimenters was paid $1, while others were paid $20 to convince subjects. Partakers in the control group were not told to convince any subjects (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Later, participants in the investigational group were requested to rate their secretive views on whether the tasks were enjoyable and exciting.  

In equivalent to cognitive dissonance theory, examiners anticipated that dissonance would be condensed by changing personal beliefs. This belief change will be reduced if there is a vast reward. , they expected a high level of dissonance in the $1 condition due to reward; hence belief change would be considerable. On the $20 condition, they expected a small magnitude of the dissonance hence a minor opinion change (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Just as anticipated, more dissonance was experienced among partakes on one dollar condition. It, therefore, demonstrated a more significant tendency to change their views to let them correspond with what they said. Generally, results showed that higher reward offers outward justification for the dissonant action and creates lesser dissonance, while low reward does not give any justification and therefore causes more dissonance. Individuals incline to change their views by adopting what they have done or said to reduce dissonance.  

The 1959 research by Festinger and Carlsmith has been considered as a classical examination of cognitive dissonance because it offers the first sufficient proof for the theory. It demonstrates that if an individual participates in an unfriendly task that is less rewarding, their perception of performing the unfriendly task is inconsistent with his cognition of getting no reward (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Therefore, the individual decreases dissonance by pursuing some rationalizations like increasing the appeal of the objective. For example, in one research in 1959, Aronson and Mills examined whether negative experiences could impact the group. Regular with the cognitive dissonance model, the researchers anticipated that members who undergo a negative experience to join a group would upsurge their liking. In examining this hypothesis, college females were randomly assigned to three experimental conditions: a mild initiation group which was requested to read less embarrassing resources before being members of the group, a severe initiation group that read embarrassing resources before getting into the group, and a control group which was not requested to read any resources before being members of the group.  

They have then listened to a gloomy, dull group discussion. The results revealed that females who had negative experiences viewed their group as more gorgeous than those in mild and control initiation groups. The outcomes maintained the cognitive dissonance model since the unfriendly experience was inharmonious with the boring discussion. The persons distorted their prevailing opinions of the group in a promising direction to decrease dissonance. The earlier study offers supportive proof for this argument since reinforcement theory proposes that individuals like things that have rewards; still, research on dissonance demonstrates that persons like things they struggle with (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). Therefore, it funds the literature by demonstrating that support might not describe each social occurrence.    

The primary research has displayed that cognition of executing an unfriendly task is dissonant with the cognition of getting no reward. Theoretically, researchers would anticipate that punishment yields a contrary impact. To examine how punishment influences cognitive dissonance, Aronson and Carlsmith researched preschoolers in many discipline contexts. They let the children play with toys and then informed them that they could use all toys except the one most attractive. In one situation, they used severe intimidation to disappoint them from playing with the attractive toy. In another situation, they used less mild intimidation to disappoint the children to play with the forbidden toy (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). Likewise, preschoolers in the mid-threat situation abstained from playing with the toy; however, they decreased their liking for the toy. Consistent with the theory, in the presence of a severe threat, the cognition that they would be punished severely for playing with the toy was perpetual with the cognition that they ceased playing with the forbidden toy. The children had dissonance in the absence of severe intimidation since the cognition of not playing with the forbidden toy was inharmonious with the cognition that it was nice-looking. The children devalued the toy to reduce cognitive dissonance. Aronson claimed that a mild threat situation does not offer enough justification for not playing with the gorgeous toy. Therefore, children get various reasons like persuading themselves that the toy was not attractive.  

Causes of Cognitive Dissonance 

Cognitive dissonance happens when a person is in a situation where there is a conflict between their beliefs, actions, attitudes, and values. The situations could be triggered by: 

Decision Making 

Life is full of decisions, and generally, decisions stimulate dissonance. Everyone has to make several decisions to get through every day. Decision-making generally triggers dissonance because all decisions comprise selecting between two or more options. For instance, assume you were to choose whether to take a job in a magnificent city, or you decline the job to be close to your family and friends. Whichever way, you would have dissonance. If you reject the job, you miss the beautiful place; if you take the job, you would be away from your friends and family and miss them. The two alternatives have their good and bad points. The issue is that decision-making cuts off the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the unchosen substitute. However, it guarantees you that you should agree to the selected alternative's shortcomings (McLeod, 2008). It is what causes dissonance. The more similar or attractive the two choices are the more dissonance a person experiences. Someone ends up defending their decisions even in circumstances where they made the worst choice to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They find ways to support their decision to make them feel contented that they made the correct choice.  

Forced Compliance Behavior 

Dissonance is established between behavior and cognition when a person is forced to do something they are not willing to do. Forced compliance happens when a person is performing an activity that is uneven with their beliefs. Consider a case where an accountant is told to hide an instance of misappropriation of funds by their manager. The accountant trusts that covering up the mistake is wrong, but she could be forced to do so to keep their job. It causes cognitive dissonance. The action has happened; it cannot be changed; therefore, the dissonance is required to be minimized by re-examining their attitude to their action.  

Effort 

It appears that people highly value the items or goals that needed considerable effort to attain. Probably, it is because we would cause dissonance if we spent so much effort to accomplish something and then value it negatively. Of course, we could spend many years of effort into attaining something which becomes rubbish and so, to reduce dissonance that comes in, we would try to convince ourselves that it was less effort, or the effort was delightful that did not spend many years of work. We experience dissonance when we place so much effort into a task in which we have decided to participate, and the job turns out negatively (Festinger, 1957). We are forced to believe that the task turned out well to reduce dissonance. Someone who saved money for ten years to buy a car value it more than a person who invested in cryptocurrencies and made millions in six months to buy themselves a similar car. It is denoted as effort rationalization.  

Gaining New Information 

An additional primary source of cognitive dissonance is getting information that counteracts our beliefs. Consider an example of 1954 cultists that Festinger studied. The cult members believed that a flood was coming and that a flying saucer would rescue them. There were no floods at the dawn of 21st December (Festinger, 1957). The latest information led to cognitive dissonance because it was against their beliefs. The cult members then persuaded themselves that their faith had saved the world to reduce their disharmony. They got on a new mission to spread the word to the people.   

Factors Influencing Cognitive Dissonance 

The level of cognitive dissonance an individual experiences differs depending on the conditions surrounding the dissonance and the specific situation that led to dissonance. The factors control the impact of the disagreement and the lengths to which we go to eliminate or reduce the disharmony (McLeod, 2008). The greater the dissonance, the more force needed to decrease the tension.  

The degree of cognitive dissonance is generally affected by the inconsistency between the consistent belief and the dissonant actions, information, and thoughts—the greater the difference, the greater the cognitive dissonance. Personal cognitions like personal values and beliefs on self can cause a more incredible amount of cognitive dissonance. Persons do not like looking unethical, dishonest, or dump. Thus, they will be too uncomfortable concerning any dissonance that intimidates their image. 

Another factor is the ramifications of the decisions and how easy it is to undo the consequences of the decisions. Perpetual decisions with substantial ramifications are likely to result in more intense cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance is also affected by the importance of cognition (McLeod, 2008). Typically, if the value or belief is highly valued, then it will cause more substantial dissonance. The probability of describing the disagreement in other ways also affects cognitive dissonance. The intensity of dissonance gets reduced in case there are many ways of clarifying away the dissonance.  

How to Recognize Cognitive Dissonance 

It is natural to have cognitive dissonance. Every person experiences various degrees of dissonance every day, depending on the various circumstances we find ourselves in and the beliefs being confronted. Regularly, there is an insignificant degree of dissonance that our minds decide before we remotely know that we are facing cognitive dissonance (Carlsmith, 1959). However, at times there is strong enough distress that you know something is wrong, even if you might not know that you are undergoing cognitive dissonance. These are common signs to tell that you are experiencing cognitive dissonance:  

Conflict avoidance:  A few individuals do not confrontations or conflicts at all. When encountered with a possible confrontational state, they select the path of minimum resistance, which is avoiding the confrontation. Conflict avoidance could also signal cognitive dissonance. They choose to avoid the mental distress connected to the conflict instead of fronting the situation.  

Ignoring the facts:  You could also be experiencing cognitive dissonance if you ignore the realities and make wrong decisions from a rational viewpoint. For example, an overweight individual might continue eating junk foods even when the doctor has warned them that it has adverse impacts on their health. Instead of following the doctor's advice, they ignore the fact that they are obese and need to change their lifestyle.  

Feeling uncomfortable or squeamish : The uncomfortable feeling in the stomach just after making a decision or engaging in action signifies that you are undergoing cognitive dissonance.  

Guilt : The feeling of guilt often accompanies the action against your beliefs. You tend to feel that what you did was wrong and that you ought to have done another thing instead. Before the action, the cognitive dissonance is shown by anxiety just before the activity and followed by a feeling of guilt after doing the action (McLeod, 2008). Justification follows the real action as you try to relieve the guilt.  

FOMO : The fear of missing out leads to cognitive dissonance. It makes you do something that counteracts your beliefs to appear cool or excite your friends. For example, you might end up joining your friends at the club when you are aware that you ought to be saving the money.  

Shame : You end up in shame when you engage in something that counteracts your beliefs, most importantly your personal beliefs. Even after attempting to justify your actions, you still regret them, and you might even need to hide your actions or decisions from other persons.  

Rationalization : There is an indicator of cognitive dissonance if you make decisions and then you are trying to convince yourself that you made the correct choice. You want to make yourself believe otherwise in something that might be wrong.  

Ways of Reducing Cognitive Dissonance 

Adding new beliefs 

A person could obtain new information that overshadows dissonant beliefs. For instance, the thought of how smoking causes cancer would lead to dissonance if an individual smokes. The person may search for new information that outweighs the belief that smoking is dangerous to the health. If the person gets new information like an article claiming that studies have not demonstrated any definite connection between cancer and smoking, it might reduce dissonance. While adding new beliefs is the simplest method to reduce dissonance, it is not very common because, in several cases, individuals are unwilling to change their beliefs, particularly the ones formed from childhood.  

Changing existing behavior or beliefs. 

A change in one or more of the behaviors, attitudes, or beliefs creates a constant relationship between the two elements. Suppose an individual cannot get any new information to assist them in changing their beliefs. In that case, they can still solve the disharmony by eliminating or changing the behavior or action that causes dissonance. When one of the perpetual elements is an attitude, the person can eliminate or change it (McLeod, 2008). Nonetheless, this dissonance reduction mode often presents issues among persons, as it is usually hard for individuals to change well-learned behaviors. Supposing a smoker has no tangible information to make them change the belief that smoking is dangerous to their health, they choose to quit the behavior. Unluckily, the person is addicted to smoking; hence quitting the behavior would be a hard thing for them. Like the smoker, most individuals do not successfully reduce dissonance by changing their behavior or actions because it is not easy to change well-learned behaviors. At times, the conflicting action might not be beneficial for the individual, such as students who cheat in the exams. In such cases, the individual requires a method to reduce dissonance minus changing their behavior or beliefs.  

Reducing the importance of the beliefs 

Decreasing the significance of the dissonant belief is a common way of reducing cognitive dissonance. The individual changes how they see the inconsistent behavior or belief using this method. , they find methods of rationalizing the inconsistent cognitions. Consider a smoker who lacks any information to help him change his belief and is incapable of stopping smoking. The individual can reduce the importance of cognitions by persuading themselves that it is better "living for today" instead of "saving for tomorrow." People would allow themselves to believe that a short life full of sensual pleasures and smoking is better than a long lifespan lacking such pleasures. Thus, the person would be reducing the relevance of dissonant cognition and convince themselves that smoking is not bad for their health. Alternatively, they could justify their smoking by claiming that life has very many health risks and they cannot accurately escape them all.  

How cognitive Dissonance is Resolved 

Occasionally, the ways that individuals resolve cognitive dissonance could lead to poor decisions or unhealthy behaviors. Festinger explained how an individual could deal with dissonance associated with a well-being behavior by deliberating persons who continue smoking. However, they are aware that smoking is risky for their health (Salti et al., 2014). According to him, individuals can decide that they highly value smoking than their health, considering the actions "worth it" concerning risks against rewards.  

A person can also resolve cognitive dissonance by reducing potential drawbacks. A person who smokes can persuade themselves that the lousy health impacts have been exaggerated. They might also appease their health concerns by trusting that they might not escape each potential health risk around them. 

Festinger also proposed that individuals might attempt to persuade themselves that if they gain weight if they quit smoking, health risks also come. The smoker will reduce cognitive dissonance and continue with their behavior by using such justifications.  

Impacts of Cognitive Dissonance 

Cognitive dissonance might make you feel uncomfortable and uneasy, primarily if the disagreement between your behaviors and the beliefs comprise something significant to your sense of self. For instance, behaving in a manner inconsistent with your values might lead to a strong feeling of anxiety (Festinger, 1957). Your behavior contradicts not only your beliefs about yourself but also the beliefs you have concerning the world.  

The discomfort can manifest itself in different ways. Persons might feel embarrassment, regret, anxiety, stress, shame, and sadness. People love to trust that they are consistent, logical, and best at decision-making. Cognitive dissonance might also affect how persons feel and observe themselves, resulting in bad feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. Since people need to eliminate disharmony, cognitive dissonance has numerous impacts. It might play a role in how persons think, act, and make decisions. People might engage in behaviors or adopt attitudes to assist them in reducing the discomfort caused by dissonance.  

In conclusion, cognitive dissonance is the discomfort we experience when our behavior and actions are inconsistent with our values and beliefs. The discomfort is so unlimited that cognitive dissonance can substantially influence the actions and decisions we take. Cognitive dissonance might also be used to manipulate us to participate in actions we are not willing to do. It also plays a part in several decisions, evaluations, and judgments. Knowing how inconsistent beliefs affect your decision-making process is a great way to increase your ability to make more accurate and faster choices. Therefore, knowing the influence of cognitive dissonance in our decision-making and understanding how we can eliminate it can help us improve our decision-making and assist us in making better changes in our behavior instead of continuing to lie on ourselves. 

References 

Carlsmith, J. (1959). Cognitive Dissonance.  Social Psychology ,  58 , 203-210. 

Festinger, L. (1957).  A theory of cognitive dissonance  (Vol. 2). Stanford university press. 

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.  The journal of abnormal and social psychology ,  58 (2), 203. http://faculty.washington.edu/jdb/345/345%20Articles/Festinger%20&%20Carlsmith.pdf 

Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development.  Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie ,  38 (1), 7-16. https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.569.8667&rep=rep1&type=pdf 

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory.  https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/Cognitive-Dissonance-Intro-Sample.pdf 

McLeod, S. (2008). Cognitive dissonance.  Simply Psychology ,  31 (1), 2-7.  https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html 

Salti, M., El Karoui, I., Maillet, M., & Naccache, L. (2014). Cognitive dissonance resolution is related to episodic memory.  PloS one ,  9 (9), e108579.