DR.

RAM MANOHAR LOHIYA

NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY

FINAL DRAFT OF

PSYCHOLOGY

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Submitted to: Submitted by:

Ms.Isha Yadav Aryan Singh

Assistant Professor (Psychology) BA LLB (Hons.)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First of all, I would like to thank Ms. Isha Yadav for giving me this opportunity to make the
project on such an immense topic and all the support and guidance that I have received from her,
without which this project could not have turned into a reality. I would also like to thank all my
colleagues and seniors for providing me support and material facts and figures related to this
topic. Last but not the least; I would like to thank my parents for providing me appropriate
guidance and support to prepare the project. All the above-mentioned people have very whole
heartedly helped me to make this project in the present shape.

Thank You!

Aryan Singh.

2|Page
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 4
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY ....................................................................................... 5
FESTINGER’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (1957) ........................................... 6
FORCED COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR ........................................................................................ 8
THE EXPERIMENT ...................................................................................................................... 9
DECISION MAKING AND DISSONANCE ................................................................................ 9
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFORT AND DISSONANCE .................................................. 11
REVISIONS AND ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS ...................................................... 12
TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE THEORY ...................................................................... 13
BIBLIOGRAPHY ......................................................................................................................... 15

3|Page
INTRODUCTION

The theory of cognitive dissonance is one of the most influential theories in social psychology.
Since its initial publication 50 years ago, it has inspired more than 1,000 empirical papers.
Almost half a century ago social psychologist Leon Festinger developed the cognitive
dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). The theory has obviously stood the test of time in that it is
mentioned in most general and social psychology textbooks today. The theory is somewhat
counterintuitive and, in fact, fits into a category of counterintuitive social psychology theories
sometimes referred to as action-opinion theories. The fundamental characteristic of action
opinion theories is that they propose that actions can influence subsequent beliefs and attitudes.
This is counterintuitive in that it would seem logical that our actions are the result of our
beliefs/attitudes, not the cause of them. However, on further examination these types of theories
have great intuitive appeal in that the theories, particularly cognitive dissonance, address the
pervasive human tendency to rationalize. However, dissonance theory has not only had a
profound impact on research in social psychology, it has also been used for designing
interventions to address a variety of societal problems. People tend to seek consistency in their
beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of your beliefs conflicts with another
previously held belief? Or what happens if you engage in behaviors that are in conflict with your
beliefs? These are some of the questions which the project would be dealing with. The term
cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feelings of discomfort that result from holding two
conflicting beliefs. When there is an inconsistency between beliefs and behaviors, something
must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance. According to this theory, people
experience tension or discomfort when their beliefs or attitudes do not match their behaviors.
People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. When there is a discrepancy
between beliefs or behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the
dissonance.

How exactly does cognitive dissonance work and how does it influence how we think and
behave is also what this project would be dealing in.

4|Page
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY

It is based on three fundamental assumptions. Humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between

actions and beliefs. According to the theory, we all recognize, at some level, when we are acting
in a way that is inconsistent with our beliefs/attitudes/opinions. In effect, there is a built in alarm
that goes off when we notice such an inconsistency, whether we like it or not. For example, if
you have a belief that it is wrong to cheat, yet you find yourself cheating on a test, you will
notice and be affected by this inconsistency. Recognition of this inconsistency will cause
dissonance, and will motivate an individual to resolve the dissonance. • Once you recognize that
you have violated one of your principles, according to this theory, you won’t just say “oh well”.
You will feel some sort of mental anguish about this. The degree of dissonance, of course, will
vary with the importance of your belief/attitude/principle and with the degree of inconsistency
between your behavior and this belief. In any case, according to the theory, the greater the
dissonance the more you will be motivated to resolve it.

RESOLVING DISSONANCE

Dissonance will be resolved in one of three basic ways:

a) Change beliefs- Perhaps the simplest way to resolve dissonance between actions and beliefs
is simply to change your beliefs. You could, of course, just decide that cheating is ok. This
would take care of any dissonance. However, if the belief is fundamental and important to
you such a course of action is unlikely. Moreover, our basic beliefs and attitudes are pretty
stable, and people don’t just go around changing basic beliefs/attitudes/opinions all the time,
since we 2 rely a lot on our world view in predicting events and organizing our thoughts.
Therefore, though this is the simplest option for resolving dissonance it’s probably not the
most common.
b) Change actions- A second option would be to make sure that you never do this action
again. Lord knows that guilt and anxiety can be motivators for changing behavior. So, you
may say to yourself that you will never cheat on a test again, and this may aid in resolving
the dissonance. However, aversive conditioning (i.e., guilt/anxiety) can often be a pretty
poor way of learning, especially if you can train yourself not to feel these things. Plus, you

5|Page
 may really benefit in some way from the action that’s inconsistent with your beliefs. So, the
trick would be to get rid of this feeling without changing your beliefs or your actions, and
this leads us to the third, and probably most common, method of resolution.
c) Change perception of action- A third and more complex method of resolution is to change
the way you view/remember/perceive your action. In more colloquial terms, you would
“rationalize” your actions. For example, you might decide that the test you cheated on was
for a dumb class that you didn’t need anyway. Or you may say to yourself that everyone
cheats so why not you? In other words, you think about your action in a different manner or
context so that it no longer appears to be inconsistent with your actions.

FESTINGER’S THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE (1957)

The central proposition of Festinger’s theory is that if a person holds two cognitions that are
inconsistent with one another, he will experience the pressure of an aversive motivational state
called cognitive dissonance, a pressure which he will seek to remove, among other ways, by
altering one of the two dissonant cognitions. If we wish to analyze the hypothesis stated above in
detail, it is essential to define several basic concepts. A cognition (also called a cognitive
element) may be broadly defined as any belief, opinion, attitude, perception, or piece of
knowledge about anything - about other persons, objects, issues, oneself, and so on. Littlejohn
and Foss (2005) define a cognitive system as "a complex, interacting set of beliefs, attitudes, and
values that affect and are affected by behavior".

Festinger considered the need to avoid dissonance to be just as basic as the need for safety or the
need to satisfy hunger. Psychologists define a drive as any internal source of motivation that
impels an organism to pursue a goal or to satisfy a need, such as sex, hunger, or self-
preservation. The distressing (aversive) mental state termed cognitive dissonance is therefore
conceptualized as an aversive drive. Bormann refers to communication theory as an "umbrella
term for all careful, systematic and self-conscious discussion and analysis of communication
phenomena". Scholars have made many attempts to define communication but establishing a
single definition has proved impossible. Communication will be taken to mean "all those
processes by which people influence one another". In as much as Festinger's theory is concerned

6|Page
with attitude change and attempts to discern how persuasive messages are processed in the minds
of listeners, there is no doubt that it may be regarded as a communication theory. That brings us
to the next point, namely the categorization of cognitive dissonance theory. As has been noted
above, it is firmly planted in the socio psychological tradition, which focuses on individual social
behavior, psychological variables, perception, and cognition. At the same time, however, it is so
infused with system thinking that it must be included in the cybernetic tradition as well.
Festinger's theory is one of a group of cybernetic theories known as consistency theories, all of
which begin with the same premise: people are more comfortable with consistency than
inconsistency. In cybernetic language, people seek homeostasis, or balance, and the cognitive
system is a primary tool by which this balance is achieved. The mind is imagined as a system
that takes inputs from the environment in the form of information, processes it, and then creates
behavioral outputs.

It can thus be concluded that the theory of cognitive dissonance is a nomothetic theory – one that
seeks universal and general laws. This approach is based on the hypothetico-deductive method,
which involves the following processes:

(1) Developing questions

(2) Forming hypotheses

(3) Testing the hypotheses

(4) Formulating theory. Festinger's theory appears to make certain philosophical assumptions
that are typical of nomothetic theories. In epistemology, the theory espouses empiricist and
rationalist ideas. In terms of axiology, the theory takes a value-neutral stance.

7|Page
FORCED COMPLIANCE BEHAVIOR

When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don't want to do,
dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn't want to do this) and their behavior (I did
it).

Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or
her beliefs. The behavior can't be changed, since it was already in the past, so dissonance will
need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude to what they have done. This prediction has
been tested experimentally:

In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a

series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you can imagine,
participant's attitudes toward this task were highly negative.

Aim

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create
cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior.

Method

In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of
dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour).

They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the tasks
were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and
persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.

Results

When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid
only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20
to lie.

8|Page
Conclusion

Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1
experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to believe that the
tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs
and there is therefore no dissonance.

THE EXPERIMENT

There have been 100s, if not 1000s, of experiments that have examined cognitive dissonance
theory since the theories’ inception.

An experiment by Cialdini and Schroeder (1976, as cited in Aronson, 2004, p. 170) demonstrated
interesting practical implications arising from Aronson's formulation of dissonance theory.
Students acting as fundraisers went door to door, sometimes just asking for donations and
sometimes adding that “even a penny will help”. As conjectured, the residents who were
approached with the even-a-penny request gave contributions more often. Furthermore, the even-
a-penny contributors were likely to give as much money as the others. Once people reach into
their pockets, emerging with a mere penny is self-demeaning. A larger donation is consistent
with their self-perception of being reasonably kind and generous.

DECISION MAKING AND DISSONANCE

Life is filled with decisions, and decisions (as a general rule) arouse dissonance.

For example, suppose you had to decide whether to accept a job in an absolutely beautiful area of
the country, or turn down the job so you could be near your friends and family. Either way, you
would experience dissonance. If you took the job you would miss your loved ones; if you turned
the job down, you would pine for the beautiful streams, mountains, and valleys.

9|Page
Both alternatives have their good points and bad points. The rub is that making a decision cuts
off the possibility that you can enjoy the advantages of the unchosen alternative, yet it assures
you that you must accept the disadvantages of the chosen alternative.

People have several ways to reduce dissonance that is aroused by making a decision (Festinger,
1964). One thing they can do is to change the behavior. As noted earlier, this is often very
difficult, so people frequently employ a variety of mental maneuvers. A common way to reduce
dissonance is to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and to decrease the
attractiveness of the rejected alternative. This is referred to as "spreading apart the alternatives."

Brehm (1956) was the first to investigate the relationship between dissonance and decision-
making. Female participants were informed they would be helping out in a study funded by
several manufacturers.

Participants were also told that they would receive one of the products at the end of the
experiment to compensate for their time and effort. The women then rated the desirability of
eight household products that ranged in price from $15 to $30. The products included an
automatic coffee maker, an electric sandwich grill, an automatic toaster, and a portable radio.

Participants in the control group were simply given one of the products. Because these
participants did not make a decision, they did not have any dissonance to reduce. Individuals in
the low-dissonance group chose between a desirable product and one rated 3 points lower on an
8-point scale. Participants in the high-dissonance condition chose between a highly desirable
product and one rated just 1 point lower on the 8-point scale. After reading the reports about the
various products, individuals rated the products again.

Participants in the high-dissonance condition spread apart the alternatives significantly more than
did the participants in the other two conditions. In other words, they were more likely than
participants in the other two conditions to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative
and to decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen alternative.

10 | P a g e
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EFFORT AND DISSONANCE

It also seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required
considerable effort to achieve.

This is probably because dissonance would be caused if we spent a great effort to achieve
something and then evaluated it negatively. We could, of course, spend years of effort into
achieving something which turns out to be a load of rubbish and then, in order to avoid the
dissonance that produces, try to convince ourselves that we didn't really spend years of effort, or
that the effort was really quite enjoyable, or that it wasn't really a lot of effort.

In fact, though, it seems we find it easier to persuade ourselves that what we have achieved is
worthwhile and that's what most of us do, evaluating highly something whose achievement has
cost us dear - whether other people think it's much cop or not! This method of reducing
dissonance is known as 'effort justification'.

If we put effort into a task which we have chosen to carry out, and the task turns out badly, we
experience dissonance. To reduce this dissonance, we are motivated to try to think that the task
turned out well. A classic dissonance experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrates the
basic idea.

Female students volunteered to take part in a discussion on the psychology of sex. In the 'mild
embarrassment' condition, participants read aloud to a male experimenter a list of sex-related
words like 'virgin' and 'prostitute'. In the 'severe embarrassment' condition, they had to read aloud
obscene words and a very explicit sexual passage. In the control condition, they went straight
into the main study. In all conditions they then heard a very boring discussion about sex in lower
animals. They were asked to rate how interesting they had found the discussion, and how
interesting they had found the people involved in it.

Result was that the Participants in the 'severe embarrassment' condition gave the most positive
rating.

Thus it was concluded that if a voluntary experience which has cost a lot of effort turns out
badly, dissonance is reduced by redefining the experience as interesting. This justifies the effort
made.
11 | P a g e
REVISIONS AND ALTERNATIVE INTERPRETATIONS

A number of revisions to dissonance theory have been suggested, and several competing
explanations have also been proposed. According to Aronson, people experience cognitive
dissonance as a result of psychological inconsistency rather than logical inconsistency between
attitude and behavior. He interprets the $1/$20 experiment as a study of self-esteem maintenance
(Aronson, 2004, p. 169; Griffin, 2006, p. 234). Aronson (1992, as cited in O'Keefe, 2002, p. 96)
has suggested that dissonance arises most plainly from inconsistencies that specifically involve
the self. That is, dissonance is greatest and clearest when it involves not just any two cognitions
but, rather, cognition about the self and a piece of our behavior that violates that self-concept.
Dissonance-reducing behavior is ego-defensive behavior. By reducing dissonance, we maintain a
positive image of ourselves - an image that depicts us as good, or smart, or worthwhile. Aronson
claims that people are not rational beings, but rather rationalizing beings. Humans are motivated
not so much to be right as to believe they are right and to justify their own actions, beliefs, and
feelings. When they do something, they will try to convince themselves (and others) that it was a
logical, reasonable thing to do.

Another major revision to Festinger's original theory was proposed by Bem (1967), whose theory
of self-perception has provided an alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena.
He challenged the assumption that it is the discomfort caused by a threat to the self-concept that
motivates people to change their beliefs or behavior. He developed the notion of self-perception
and applied it to some of the research on dissonance theory. For example, he conducted his own
$1/$20 study to test his hypothesis. According to Bem (1967), "the attitude statements which
comprise the major dependent variables in dissonance experiments may be regarded as
interpersonal judgments in which the observer and the observed happen to be the same individual
and that it is unnecessary to postulate an aversive motivational drive toward consistency to
account for the attitude change phenomena observed" (p. 183). In other words, the people may
not be experiencing discomfort and may not be motivated to justify themselves. Rather, they may
simply be observing their own behavior in a calm and dispassionate way, and drawing
conclusions from their observations.

12 | P a g e
TENTATIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE THEORY

Griffin proposed a set of criteria for assessing objective theories:

(1) Explanation of the data

(2) Prediction of future events

(3) Relative simplicity

(4) Testability

(5) Practical utility

As has been argued above, the theory of cognitive dissonance is reasonably effective in
explaining and predicting human behavior, although its expectations have sometimes received
only weak confirmation and unanticipated findings have emerged. The foregoing discussion
provides ample evidence of the theory's practical utility. However, reservations have been
expressed about its simplicity. Furthermore, Festinger's theory contains a serious flaw: it is not
falsifiable. There is no way it could be proved wrong because Festinger never specified a reliable
way to detect the degree of dissonance a person experiences. Nevertheless, cognitive dissonance
theory has yielded a number of useful and interesting findings. Moreover, it has served as a
fruitful source of ideas and stimulated substantial relevant research.

There has been a great deal of research into cognitive dissonance, providing some interesting and
sometimes unexpected findings. It is a theory with very broad applications, showing that we aim
for a consistency between attitudes and behaviors, and may not use very rational methods to
achieve it. It has the advantage of being testable by scientific means (i.e. experiments).

However, there is a problem from a scientific point of view, because we cannot physically
observe cognitive dissonance, and therefore we cannot objectively measure it (re: behaviorism).
Consequently, the term cognitive dissonance is somewhat subjective.

There is also some ambiguity (i.e. vagueness) about the term 'dissonance'itself. Is it a
perception (as 'cognitive' suggests), or a feeling, or a feeling about a perception? Aronson's
Revision of the idea of dissonance as inconsistency between a person's self-concept and a

13 | P a g e
cognition about their behavior makes it seem likely that dissonance is really nothing more than
guilt.

There are also individual differences in whether or not people act as this theory predicts. Highly
anxious people are more likely to do so. Many people seem able to cope with considerable
dissonance and not experience the tensions the theory predicts.

Finally, many of the studies supporting the theory of cognitive dissonance have low ecological
validity. For example, turning pegs (as in Festinger's experiment) is an artificial task that doesn’t
happen in everyday life. Also, the majority of experiments used students as participants, which
raise issues of a biased sample.

14 | P a g e
BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Post decision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384.
2. McLeod, S. A. (2014). Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved from
www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
3. Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced
compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203.
4. Daniel W. Barrett [2017]. Cognitive dissonance. Social psychology: core concepts and
emerging trends, 255.
5. Robert A. Baron and others (2006). Cognitive Dissonance. Social Psychology (11thedn)
127,155-156.
6. Adam Kowol. The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Retrieved From
https://web.mst.edu/~psyworld/general/dissonance/dissonance.pdf

15 | P a g e