Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance
simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive
to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is
also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively
studied theories in social psychology.
Hindsight can clash with prior expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse after the
purchase of a new car. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or
embarrassment. Despite contrary evidence, people are biased to think of their choices as correct.
This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling
irrational and destructive behavior.
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the
fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-
hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he
surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour.
This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's
dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation."
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-
concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with
the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create
additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much
money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or
her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person
feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and
other ego defense mechanisms.
The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger
and others in the book When Prophecy Fails. The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the
imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not
disintegrate, but grew instead, as members vied to prove their orthodoxy by recruiting converts (see
further discussion below).
Another famous example of cognitive dissonance is the Ben Franklin effect. Franklin (1996: p. 80)
won over a political opponent by asking him a favor and he relates thus:
I did not ... aim at gaining his favour by paying any servile respect to him but, after some
time, took this other method. Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce
and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and
requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it
immediately, and I return'd it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my
sense of the favour. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never
done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on
all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death.
This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, "He that has
once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself
have obliged."
This perception of Franklin has led to what has become known as the Ben Franklin effect. After
lending Franklin the book, the opponent had to resolve the dissonance of his attitude towards
Franklin, whom he also had just done a favor. He justified doing the favor by telling himself that he
actually liked Franklin, and, as a result, he treated him with respect instead of rudeness from then
on.[citation needed]
Smoking is often postulated as an example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted
that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. In
terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something
that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be
reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence of lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking. For
example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become
ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else
will. While chemical addiction may operate in addition to cognitive dissonance for existing
smokers, new smokers may exhibit a simpler case of the latter.
This case of dissonance could also be interpreted in terms of a threat to the self-concept. The
thought, "I am increasing my risk of lung cancer" is dissonant with the self-related belief, "I am a
smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions." Because it is often easier to make excuses
than it is to change behavior, dissonance theory leads to the conclusion that humans are
rationalizing and not always rational beings.
http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rmreardon/601/601session04.htm