Cognitive dissonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Psychology
The Greek letter 'psi', a symbol for psychology
Basic types
Applied psychology
Lists

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress (discomfort) experienced by a person who simultaneously holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values, when performing an action that contradicts those beliefs, ideas, and values; or when confronted with new information that contradicts existing beliefs, ideas, and values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how human beings strive for internal consistency. A person who experiences inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and so is motivated to try to reduce the cognitive dissonance occurring, and actively avoids situations and information likely to increase the psychological discomfort.[1]

Relations among cognitions[edit]

To function in the real world, people can variously adjust their attitudes and actions; their adjustments result in one of three relationships, either between two cognitions, or between a cognition and a behavior.[1]

  1. Consonant relationship: Two cognitions or actions consistent with each other (e.g. not wanting to become drunk while out to dinner, and ordering water instead of wine)
  2. Irrelevant relationship: Two cognitions or actions unrelated to each other (e.g. not wanting to be drunk while out, then cleaning one's shoes)
  3. Dissonant relationship: Two cognitions or actions inconsistent with each other (e.g. not wanting to become intoxicated while out, then drinking much alcohol)

Magnitude of dissonance[edit]

Two factors determine the degree of dissonance produced by two conflicting cognitions or actions, and the consequent psychological distress:

  1. The importance of cognitions: The greater the personal value of the elements, the greater the magnitude of the dissonance in the relation.
  2. Ratio of cognitions: The proportion of dissonant-to-consonant elements.

The psychological pressure to reduce cognitive dissonance is a function of the magnitude of the dissonance.[1]

Reducing dissonance[edit]

Cognitive-dissonance theory is founded upon the assumption that people seek psychological consistency, between their expectations and the reality of life. To function by that expectation of existential consistency, people practise the process of dissonance reduction in order to continually align their cognitions with their actions. The creation and establishment of consistency allows the lessening of mental stress and consequent psychological distress; therefore, the reduction of cognitive dissonance can be achieved by change, justification, or indifference.[1] The four methods people use to reduce cognitive dissonance are:

  1. Change the behavior or the cognition ("I will eat no more of this doughnut.")
  2. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat my diet, every once in a while.")
  3. Justify the behavior or the cognition, by adding new cognitions ("I'll spend thirty extra minutes at the gymnasium, to work off the doughnut.")
  4. Ignore or deny any information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not a high-fat food.")

To facilitate interacting with the world, human beings employ categories such as: race, gender, and age. When the category-groups are identified and established, a scheme of social attitudes (stereotypes) towards a category-group enters the mind of the person. The social attitudes also involve negative emotions (prejudices) towards the stereotypes, or the fixed, generalized views the person held about the category of people causing his or her cognitive dissonance.[3]

Paradigms[edit]

There are four theoretic paradigms of cognitive dissonance, the mental stress suffered by a man or woman when exposed to contradictory information that is inconsistent with his or her prior beliefs, ideas, or values; (i) Belief Disconfirmation, (ii) Induced Compliance, (iii) Free Choice, and (iv) Effort Justification; which respectively explain: what happens after a person acts inconsistently, relative to prior intellectual perspectives; what happens after a person makes decisions; and what are the effects upon a person who has expended much effort to achieve a goal. Common to each paradigm of cognitive-dissonance theory is the tenet: People invested to a given perspective shall — when confronted with disconfirming evidence — expend great effort to justify retaining their challenged perspective.

Belief Disconfirmation[edit]

The disconfirmation by contradiction of a belief, an ideal, or a system of values causes cognitive dissonance that can be resolved by changing the belief under contradiction; yet, in stead of effecting change, the resultant mental stress restores psychological consonance to the person, either by mis-perception, by rejection, or by refutation of the contradiction; by seeking moral support from people who share the contradicted beliefs; and acting to persuade other people that the contradiction is unreal.[4][5]

The early hypothesis of belief disconfirmation presented in When Prophecy Fails (1956) reported that faith deepened among the members of an apocalyptic religious cult, despite the failed prophecy of an alien spaceship soon to land on Earth, to rescue them from earthly corruption. At the determined place and time, the cult assembled; they believed that only they would survive planetary destruction; yet the spaceship did not arrive to Earth. The disconfirmed prophecy caused them acute cognitive-dissonance: Had they been victims of a hoax? Had they vainly donated away their material possessions? To resolve the dissonance, between apocalyptic, end-of-the-world religious beliefs and earthly, material reality, most of the cult restored their psychological consonance by choosing to hold a less mentally-stressful idea to explain the missed landing. That the aliens had given planet Earth a second chance at existence, which, in turn, empowered them to re-direct their religious cult to environmentalism; social advocacy to end human damage to planet Earth. Moreover, upon overcoming the disconfirmed belief by changing to global environmentalism, the cult increased in numbers, by successful proselytism.[6]

Another example of the belief disconfirmation paradigm is an orthodox Jewish group which believed their Rebbe might be the Messiah. When the Rebbe died of a stroke in 1994, instead of accepting that he was not the Messiah, some of them concluded that he was still the Messiah but would soon be resurrected from the dead.[7] Some have suggested the same process might explain the belief two thousand years ago that Jesus was resurrected from the dead.[8]

Induced compliance[edit]

See also: Forced compliance theory

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on boring and tedious tasks (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters asked some of them to do a simple favour. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an actor) and persuade the impostor that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 (equivalent to $164 in present-day terms[9]) for this favour, another group was paid $1 (equivalent to $8 in present-day terms[9]), and a control group was not asked to perform the favour.

After performing dissonant behavior (lying) a person might find external, consonant elements. Therefore, a snake oil salesman might find a psychological self-justification (great profit) for promoting medical falsehoods, but otherwise, might need to change his beliefs about the falsehoods as product.

When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1, students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for their behaviour, and thus experienced less dissonance.[10]

In subsequent experiments, an alternative method of inducing dissonance has become common. In this research, experimenters use counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people are paid varying amounts of money (e.g., $1 or $10) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own. People paid only a small amount of money have less external justification for their inconsistency, and must produce internal justification to reduce the high degree of dissonance they experience.

A variant of the induced-compliance paradigm is the forbidden toy paradigm. An experiment by Aronson and Carlsmith in 1963 examined self-justification in children.[11] In this experiment, children were left in a room with a variety of toys, including a highly desirable toy steam-shovel (or other toy). Upon leaving the room, the experimenter told half the children that there would be a severe punishment if they played with that particular toy and told the other half that there would be a mild punishment. All of the children in the study refrained from playing with the toy.[11] Later, when the children were told that they could freely play with whatever toy they wanted, the ones in the mild punishment condition were less likely to play with the toy, even though the threat had been removed. The children who were only mildly threatened had to justify to themselves why they did not play with the toy. The degree of punishment by itself was not strong enough—so, to resolve their dissonance, the children had to convince themselves that the toy was not worth playing with.[11]

A 2012 study using a version of the forbidden toy paradigm showed that hearing music reduces the development of cognitive dissonance.[12] With no music playing in the background, the control group of four-year-old children were told to avoid playing with a particular toy. After playing alone, the children later devalued the forbidden toy in their ranking, which is similar findings to earlier studies. However, in the variable group, classical music was played in the background while the children played alone. In that group, the children did not later devalue the toy. The researchers concluded that music may inhibit cognitions that result in dissonance reduction.[12]

Music is not the only example of an outside force lessening post-decisional dissonance; a 2010 study showed that hand-washing had a similar effect.[13]

Free Choice[edit]

In an experiment conducted by Jack Brehm, 225 female students rated a series of common, domestic appliances, and then were allowed to choose one of two appliances as gifts to take home. A second round of ratings indicated that the participants increased their ratings of the doemestic appliance they chose, and lowered their ratings of the appliances they rejected.[14]

This can be explained in terms of cognitive dissonance. When making a difficult decision, there are always aspects of the rejected choice that one finds appealing and these features are dissonant with choosing something else. In other words, the cognition, "I chose X" is dissonant with the cognition, "There are some things I like about Y." More recent research has found similar results in four-year-old children and capuchin monkeys.[15]

In addition to internal deliberations, the structuring of decisions among other individuals may play a role in how an individual acts. Researchers in a 2013 study examined social preferences and norms as related, in a linear manner, to wage giving among three individuals. The first participant's actions influenced [clarification needed] the second's own wage giving. The researchers argue that inequity aversion is the paramount concern of the participants.[16]

Effort justification[edit]

Further information: Effort justification

Cognitive dissonance occurs to a person when he or she voluntarily engages in (physically or ethically) unpleasant activities in effort to achieve a desired goal. The mental stress caused by the dissonance can be reduced by the person exaggerating the desirability of the goal. In example, to qualify for admission to a discussion group, two groups of people underwent an embarrassing initiation, of varied psychologic severity. The first group were asked to read aloud twelve obscene words. The second group were also to read aloud twelve sexual words, not considered obscene. Both groups then were given headphones to unknowingly listen to a recorded discussion about animal sexual behaviour, which the researchers “designed to be as dull and banal as possible.” As the subjects of the experiment, the people of the groups were told that the animal-sexuality discussion was actually occurring in the next room. The subjects whose initiation required reading aloud obscene words evaluated the people of their group as more-interesting persons, than the people of the group who underwent the mild sex-word initiation.[17]

Moreover, a person washing his or her hands is an action that helps resolve post-decisional cognitive dissonance, because the mental stress usually was caused by the person's ethical–moral self-disgust, which emotion is related to the physical disgust caused by a dirty environment.[18][19]

Examples[edit]

In the fable of “The Fox and the Grapes”, by Aesop, on failing to reach the desired bunch of grapes, the fox then decides he does not truly want the fruit, because it is sour. The fox's act of rationalization (justification) reduced his anxiety about the cognitive dissonance occurred because of a desire he cannot realise.

The Fox and the Grapes[edit]

The fable of “The Fox and the Grapes”, by Aesop, is an exemplar of cognitive dissonance by the subversion of rationality. A fox spies high-hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When unable to reach the grapes, the fox decides the fruit are not worth eating, and justified his decision, claiming to himself, that the grapes likely are sour, for being unripe.

The moral of the fable is that “Any fool can despise what he cannot get”; hence the popular phrase about dismissing a thwarted goal as “unimportant” is mere expression of sour grapes. The pattern of psychological behaviour illustrated in the fable of “The Fox and the Grapes” indicates that: When a person desires something and finds that it is unattainable, he or she diminishes the resultant cognitive dissonance by criticizing the object of desire as worthless; said pattern of behaviour is an “adaptive preference formation” that allows the person to subvert rationality.[20]

Related phenomena[edit]

Cognitive dissonance also occurs when people seek to:

  • Explain inexplicable feelings: When an earthquake disaster occurs to a community, irrational rumours, based upon fear, quickly reach the adjoining communities unaffected by the disaster, because those people, not in physical danger, must psychologically justify their anxieties about the earthquake.[21]
  • Minimize regret of irrevocable choices: At a hippodrome, bettors have more confidence after betting on horses they chose just before the post-time, because that disallows a change of heart; the bettors felt post-decision cognitive dissonance.[22]
  • Justify behavior that opposed their views: After being induced to cheat in an academic examination, students judged cheating less harshly.[23]
  • Align one’s perceptions of a person with one’s behaviour towards that person: the Ben Franklin effect refers to the appearance of magnanimity, by being seen doing a favour for a rival, he increased the public store of positive feelings towards himself.
  • Reaffirm held beliefs: The confirmation bias identifies how people readily read information that confirms their established opinions, and readily avoid reading information that contradicts their opinions.[24] For example, a right-wing person usually only listens to political commentary from conservative news sources, just as a left-wing person only listens to political commentary from liberal news sources. The confirmation bias is apparent when a person confronts deeply-held political beliefs, i.e. when a person is greatly committed to his or her beliefs, values, and ideas.[24]

Balance theory proposes that people seek cognitive consonance, between their views and the views of other people; thus, a religious person will suffer cognitive dissonance if his or her mate is not religious, thus motivating the religious person to rationalize (justify) that existential incongruence. In that vein, a person can self-handicap him- or herself to justify failure by rationalization; e.g. the university student who drinks the night before an examination, in response to his fear of poor academic performance.

Applications[edit]

In addition to explaining certain counter-intuitive human behaviour, the theory of cognitive dissonance has practical applications.

Education[edit]

An educator might introduce topics by challenging students' intuitions. For instance, a student may be more willing to learn the real cause of the seasons after wrongly guessing that it has something to do with changes in the distance of Earth's orbit from the Sun.

Creating and resolving cognitive dissonance can have a powerful impact on students' motivation for learning.[25] For example, researchers have used the effort justification paradigm to increase students' enthusiasm for educational activities by offering no external reward for students' efforts: preschoolers who completed puzzles with the promise of a reward were less interested in the puzzles later, as compared to preschoolers who were offered no reward in the first place.[26] The researchers concluded that students who can attribute their work to an external reward stop working in the absence of that reward, while those who are forced to attribute their work to intrinsic motivation came to find the task genuinely enjoyable.

Psychologists have incorporated cognitive dissonance into models of basic processes of learning. Several educational interventions have been designed to foster dissonance in students by increasing their awareness of conflicts between prior beliefs and new information (e.g., by requiring students to defend prior beliefs) and then providing or guiding students to new, correct explanations that resolve the conflicts.[27]

For example, researchers have developed educational software that uses these principles to facilitate student questioning of complex subject matter.[28] Meta-analytic methods suggest that interventions which provoke cognitive dissonance to achieve directed conceptual change, have been demonstrated across numerous studies to significantly increase learning in science and reading.[27]

Therapy[edit]

The general effectiveness of psychotherapy and psychological intervention has been explained in part through cognitive dissonance theory.[29] Some social psychologists have argued that the act of freely choosing a specific therapy, together with the effort and money the client invests to continue the chosen therapy, positively influences the effectiveness of therapy.[30] This phenomenon was demonstrated in a study with overweight children, in which causing the children to believe that they freely chose the type of therapy they received resulted in greater weight loss.[31]

In another example, individuals with ophidiophobia (fear of snakes) who invested significant effort to engage in activities without therapeutic value for their condition, but were framed as legitimate and relevant therapy, showed significant improvement in phobic symptoms.[32] In these cases, and perhaps in many similar situations, patients came to feel better as a way to justify their efforts and ratify their choices. Beyond these observed short-term effects, effort expenditure in therapy also predicts long-term therapeutic change.[33]

Promoting healthy and pro-social behavior[edit]

It has also been demonstrated that cognitive dissonance can be used to promote behaviours such as increased condom use.[34] Other studies suggest that cognitive dissonance can also be used to encourage individuals to engage in prosocial behaviour under various contexts such as campaigning against littering,[35] reducing prejudice to racial minorities,[36] and compliance with anti-speeding campaigns.[37] The theory can also be used to explain reasons for donating to charity.[38][39]

Consumer behavior[edit]

Existing literature suggests that three main conditions exist for arousal of dissonance in purchases: the decision involved in the purchase must be important, such as involvement of a lot of money or psychological cost and be personally relevant to the consumer, the consumer has freedom in selecting among the alternatives, and finally, the decision involvement must be irreversible.[40]

A study performed by Lindsay Mallikin shows that when consumers experience an unexpected price encounter, they adopt three methods to reduce dissonance:[41] Consumers may employ a strategy of constant information, they may have a change in attitude, or they may engage in trivialization. Consumers employ the strategy of constant information by engaging in bias and searching for information that supports their prior beliefs. Consumers might search for information about other retailers and substitute products consistent with their belief states. Alternatively, consumers may show change in attitude such as reevaluating price in relation to external reference prices or associating high or low prices with quality. Lastly, trivialization may occur and the importance of the elements of the dissonant relationship is reduced; consumers tend to trivialize importance of money, and thus of shopping around, saving, and receiving a better deal.

Cognitive dissonance is also useful to explain and manage post-purchase concerns. A consumer who feels an alternate purchase would have been better will likely not buy the product again. To counter this, marketers have to convince buyers constantly that the product satisfies their need and thereby helps reduce their cognitive dissonance, ensuring repurchase of the same brand in the future.[citation needed] An example of post-purchase dissonance resolution used in a client relation is a salesperson congratulating his buyer on "having made the right choice".

At times cognitive dissonance is induced, rather than resolved, to market products. The Hallmark Cards tag line "When you care enough to send the very best" is an example of a marketing strategy that creates guilt in the buyer if he or she goes for a less expensive card. Such aggressive marketing ensures that the recipient also is aware that the product has a premium price. This encourages the consumer to buy the expensive cards on special occasions.[citation needed]

Social engineering[edit]

Social engineering as applied to security is the exploitation of various social and psychological weaknesses in individuals and business structures, sometimes for penetration testing but more often for nefarious purposes, such as espionage against businesses, agencies, and individuals, typically toward the end of obtaining some illegal gain, either of useful but restricted or private information or for monetary gain through such methods as phishing to obtain banking account access, or for purposes of identity theft, blackmail, and so forth. Exploitation of weaknesses caused by inducing cognitive dissonance in targets is one of the techniques used by perpetrators.[citation needed]

Alternative theories[edit]

A lawyer can experience cognitive dissonance if he must defend as innocent a client he thinks is guilty. From the perspective of Aronson, the lawyer might experience cognitive dissonance if his false statement that his client is innocent, conflicts with the lawyer's identity as an honest man.

The use of cognitive-dissonance theory in experiments generally is accepted in the field of psychology, yet, other theories propose explanatory accounts of the attitudes and behaviours of men and women as human beings.

Self-perception theory[edit]

The social psychologist Daryl Bem proposed the self-perception theory as an alternative explanation of the experimental results, which indicated that people do not think much about their attitudes, even when engaged in a conflict. The Theory of Self-perception proposes that people develop attitudes by observing their own behaviour, and conclude that their attitudes caused the observed behaviour; especially true when internal cues either are ambiguous or weak. Therefore, the person is in the same position as an observer who must rely upon external cues to infer his or her inner-state of mind. Self-perception theory proposes that people adopt attitudes without access to their states of mood and cognition.[42]

Bem interpreted that the people in the Festinger and Carlsmith study of the induced-compliance paradigm, inferred their attitudes from their behaviour. When the participants were asked: “Did you find the task interesting?”, the participants decided they must have found the task interesting, because that is what they told someone else. Bem suggested that the participants who were paid twenty dollars had a salient, external incentive and likely perceived the twenty dollars as their reason for saying the task was interesting, rather than saying that they actually found the task interesting.[43][44]

Bem's theory of self-perception and Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance make identical predictions, but only the theory of cognitive dissonance predicts the presence of unpleasant arousal, of psychological distress. Laboratory experiments verified the presence of arousal in occurrences of cognitive dissonance.[45][46]

In 1969, Elliot Aronson reformulated the theory of cognitive dissonance by linking it to the self-concept, clarifying that cognitive dissonance arises from conflicts between cognitions, especially when the conflicts threaten the positive self-image normal to the person under duress. Aronson's reinterpretations of the results of the original Festinger and Carlsmith study, using the induced-compliance paradigm, proposed that the dissonance was between the cognition, “I am an honest person.” and the cognition, “I lied about finding the task interesting.”[47]

In Cognitive Dissonance: Private Ratiocination or Public Spectacle? (1971), the author-psychologists reported that maintaining cognitive consistency is how a person protects his or her public self-image, rather than a private self-concept.[48] Yet the study results reported in I’m No Longer Torn After Choice: How Explicit Choices Implicitly Shape Preferences of Odors (2010) ostensibly contradict such an explanation, by showing the revaluation of material items after the person chose and decided, even after having forgotten the choice.[49]

Balance theory[edit]

Main article: Balance theory

Fritz Heider proposed a motivational theory of attitude change that functions on the idea that humans are driven to establish and maintain psychological balance. This drive is known as the consistency motive—the urge to maintain one's values and beliefs over time. According to balance theory there are three things interacting: (1) you (P), (2) another person (O), and (3) an element (X). These are each positioned at one point of a triangle and share two relations:[42]

  1. Unit relations – things and people that belong together based on similarity, proximity, fate, etc.
  2. Sentiment relations – evaluations of people and things (liking, disliking)

As people, human beings seek a balanced state of relations among three positions; 3 positives or 2 negatives, 1 positive:

P = you
O = John
X = John's dog
"I don't like John"
"John has a dog"
"I don't like the dog either"

People also avoid unbalanced states of relations; 3 negatives or 2 positives, 1 negative)

P = you
O = your child
X = picture your child drew
"I love my child"
"She drew me this picture"
"I love this picture"

Cost-benefit analysis[edit]

Jules Dupuit claims behaviors and cognitions can be understood from an economic standpoint such that individuals engage in the systematic processing and comparison of the costs and benefits of a decision. This process helps justify and assess the feasibility of a decision and provides a basis for comparison (determining if the benefits outweigh the costs and to what extent). Although this analysis works well in economic situations, humans are inefficient when it comes to comparing costs and benefits.[50]

Self-discrepancy theory[edit]

E. Tory Higgins proposed that people have three selves, to which they compare themselves:

  1. Actual self — representation of the attributes the person believes him- or herself to possess (basic self-concept)
  2. Ideal self — ideal attributes the person would like to possess (hopes, aspiration, motivations to change)
  3. Ought self — ideal attributes the person believes he or she should possess (duties, obligations, responsibilities)

When these self-guides are contradictory psychological distress (cognitive dissonance) results. People are motivated to reduce self-discrepancy (the gap between two self-guides).[51]

Averse consequences vs. inconsistency[edit]

During the 1980s, Cooper and Fazio argued that dissonance was caused by aversive consequences, rather than inconsistency. According to this interpretation, the belief that lying is wrong and hurtful, not the inconsistency between cognitions, is what makes people feel bad.[52] Subsequent research, however, found that people experience dissonance even when they feel they have not done anything wrong. For example, Harmon-Jones and colleagues showed that people experience dissonance even when the consequences of their statements are beneficial—as when they convince sexually active students to use condoms, when they, themselves are not using condoms.[53]

Free-choice paradigm criticism[edit]

Chen and colleagues have criticized the free-choice paradigm and have suggested that the "Rank, choice, rank" method of studying dissonance is invalid.[54] They argue that research design relies on the assumption that if the subject rates options differently in the second survey, then the subject's attitudes towards the options have therefore changed. They show that there are other reasons one might get different rankings in the second survey — perhaps the subjects were largely indifferent between choices. Although some follow-up studies have found supportive evidence for Chen's concerns,[55] other studies that have controlled for Chen's concerns have not, instead suggesting that the mere act of making a choice can indeed change preferences.[15][56][57] Nevertheless, this issue remains under active investigation.[58]

Action- and motivation-based model[edit]

This model states that inconsistencies in cognitions make people distressed since inconsistencies can interfere with actions. A number of cognitive strategies are then implemented. One may "freely" choose to act in behaviors that are not consistent with a current attitude or belief, but later try to alter their belief to match a current behavior. Dissonance occurs because cognitions do not match actions. If one changes one's attitude after dissonance occurs, one then has an obligation to commit to the behavior. When dissonance happens, the person has a negative affective state that makes them reconsider their behavior to solve the inconsistency that is the problem (Beckmann and Kuhl, 1984, Harmon-Jones, 1999, Harmon-Jones, 2000a, Jones and Gerard, 1967, McGregor et al., 1999 and Newby-Clark et al., 2002).) As a person works towards a commitment, then the motivational process is activated in the left frontal cortex.[59][60][61][62][63]

Neuroscience findings[edit]

There is evidence suggesting that the more the anterior cingulate cortex signals conflict, the more dissonance a person experiences and the more their attitudes may change

Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), Van Veen and colleagues investigated the neural basis of cognitive dissonance in a modified version of the classic induced compliance paradigm. While in the scanner, participants "argued" that the uncomfortable MRI environment was nevertheless a pleasant experience. The researchers replicated the basic induced compliance findings; participants in an experimental group enjoyed the scanner more than participants in a control group who simply were paid to make their argument.[64]

Importantly, responding counter-attitudinally activated the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and the anterior insular cortex; furthermore, the degree to which these regions were activated predicted individual participants' degree of attitude change. Van Veen and colleagues argue that these findings support the original dissonance theory by Festinger, and support the "conflict theory" of anterior cingulate functioning.[64]

Using the free choice paradigm, Sharot and colleagues have shown that after making a choice, activity in the striatum changes to reflect the new evaluation of the choice object, increasing if the object was chosen and decreasing if it was rejected.[65] Follow-up studies have largely confirmed these results.[56][66][67]

Subsequent fMRI studies, also using the free choice paradigm, have examined the decision-making process in the brain. A 2010 study showed that during decision-making processes where the participant is trying to reduce dissonance, activity increased in the right-inferior frontal gyrus, medial fronto-parietal region and ventral striatum, whereas activity decreased in the anterior insula.[67] Researchers concluded that rationalization activity may take place quickly (within seconds) without conscious deliberation. In addition, the researchers stated that the brain may engage emotional responses in the decision-making process.[67]

Cognitive dissonance has been associated with left frontal activity in the cortex (Harmon-Jones, 1999 and Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2002). In addition, the left frontal cortex has been associated with anger, with anger supporting a motivational purpose behind its anger showing the left frontal activity being active. Together, cognitive dissonance and anger are supported with the motivational directional model. Approach motivation is associated with the left frontal cortex when it can be detected that a person may able to take control of a situation that may have made them angry. Conversely, if a person does not have control of changing the situation, then there is no motivation involved and other emotions may arise.[60][68][69]

The anterior cingulate cortex activity increases when errors occur and are being monitored as well as having behavioral conflicts with the self-concept as a form of higher-level thinking (Amodio et al., 2004). A study was done to test the prediction that the left frontal cortex would have increased activity. University students had to write a paper depending on if they were assigned to a high-choice or low-choice condition. The low-choice condition required student to write about supporting a 10% increase in tuition at their university. The point of this condition was to see how significant the counterchoice may affect a person's ability to cope. The high-choice condition asked students to write in favor of tuition increase as if it was their choice and that it was completely voluntary. EEG was used to analyze students before writing the essay as dissonance is at its highest during this time (Beauvois and Joule, 1996). High-choice condition participants showed a higher level of the left frontal cortex than the low-choice participants. Results have shown that the initial experience of dissonance can be apparent in the anterior cingulate cortex, then the left frontal cortex is activated, which also activates the approach motivational system to reduce anger.[70][71]

There may be evolutionary forces behind cognitive dissonance reduction. Researchers in a 2007 study examined how preschool children and capuchin monkeys reacted when offered the choice between two similar options. The researchers had the two subject groups choose between two different kinds of stickers and candies. After choosing, the two groups were offered a new choice between the item not chosen and a similarly attractive option as the first. In line with cognitive dissonance theory, the children and the monkeys chose the "novel" option over their originally unchosen option, even though all had similar values. The researchers concluded that there were possible development and evolutionary forces behind cognitive dissonance reduction.[72]

Modeling in neural networks[edit]

Neural network models of cognition have provided the necessary framework to integrate the empirical research done on cognitive dissonance and attitudes into one model of explanation of attitude formation and change.[73]

Various neural network models have been developed to predict how cognitive dissonance influence an individual's attitude and behavior. These include:

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c d e Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. California: Stanford University Press.
  2. ^ Festinger, L. (1962). "Cognitive dissonance". Scientific American. 207 (4): 93–107. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93. 
  3. ^ Nelson, Todd (2006). The Psychology of Prejudice (second ed.). Pearson. p. 19. 
  4. ^ Harmon-Jones, Eddie, “A Cognitive Dissonance Theory Perspective on Persuasion”, in The Persuasion Handbook: Developments in Theory and Practice, James Price Dillard, Michael Pfau, Eds. 2002. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications, p.101.
  5. ^ Kracht, C., & Woodard, D., Five Years, Vol. 1 (Hannover: Wehrhahn Verlag, 2011), p. 123.
  6. ^ Festinger, L., Riecken, H.W., Schachter, S. When Prophecy Fails (1956). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. p. 000.
  7. ^ Berger, David (2008). The Rebbe, the Messiah, and the Scandal of Orthodox Indifference. Portland: Litman Library of Jewish Civilization.
  8. ^ Komarnitsky, Kris (2014). "Cognitive Dissonance and the Resurrection of Jesus". The Fourth R magazine, Volume 27, Issue 5 (September/October 2014).
  9. ^ a b Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Community Development Project. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. Retrieved January 2, 2017. 
  10. ^ Festinger, L.; Carlsmith, J.M. (1959). "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 58 (2): 203–210. doi:10.1037/h0041593. 
  11. ^ a b c Aronson, E.; Carlsmith, J.M. (1963). "Effect of the severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 66 (6): 584–588. doi:10.1037/h0039901. 
  12. ^ a b Masataka, Nobuo; Perlovsky, Leonid (2012). "The efficacy of musical emotions provoked by Mozart's music for the reconciliation of cognitive dissonance" (PDF). Scientific Reports. 2. doi:10.1038/srep00694.  open access publication - free to read
  13. ^ Lee, Spike W. S.; Schwarz, Norbert (May 2010). "Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance". Science. 328 (5979): 709. doi:10.1126/science.1186799. PMID 20448177. 
  14. ^ Brehm, J. (1956). "Post-decision Changes in Desirability of Alternatives". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 52 (3): 384–389. doi:10.1037/h0041006. 
  15. ^ a b Egan, L.C.; Bloom, P.; Santos, L.R. (2010). "Choice-induced preferences in the absence of choice: Evidence from a blind two choice paradigm with young children and capuchin monkeys". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 46 (1): 204–207. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.08.014. 
  16. ^ Gächter, Simon; Nosenzo, Daniele; Sefton, Martin (2013). "Peer Effects in Pro-Social Behavior: Social Norms or Social Preferences?". Journal of the European Economic Association. 11 (3): 548–573. doi:10.1111/jeea.12015. SSRN 2010940Freely accessible. 
  17. ^ Aronson, E.; Mills, J. (1956). "The Effect of Severity of Initiation on Liking for a Group" (PDF). Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 59 (2): 177–181. doi:10.1037/h0047195. 
  18. ^ Lee, S.W.S.; Schwartz, N. (2010). "Washing Away Postdecisional Dissonance". Science. 328 (5979): 709. doi:10.1126/science.1186799. PMID 20448177. 
  19. ^ Zhong, C.B.; Liljenquist, K. (2006). "Washing Away Your Sins: Threatened Morality and Physical Cleansing". Science. 313 (5792): 1451–1452. doi:10.1126/science.1130726. PMID 16960010. 
  20. ^ Elster, Jon. Sour Grapes: Studies in the Subversion of Rationality. Cambridge 1983, p. 123ff.
  21. ^ Prasad, J. (1950). "A Comparative Study of Rumours and Reports in Earthquakes". British Journal of Psychology. 41 (3–4): 129–144. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8295.1950.tb00271.x. 
  22. ^ Knox, Robert E.; Inkster, James A. (1968). "Postdecision Dissonance at Post Time" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 8 (4, Pt.1): 319–323. doi:10.1037/h0025528. PMID 5645589. 
  23. ^ Mills, J. (1958). "Changes in Moral Attitudes Following Temptation". Journal of Personality. 26 (4): 517–531. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1958.tb02349.x. 
  24. ^ a b Hart, W.; Albarracín, D.; Eagly, A. H.; Brechan, I.; Lindberg, M. J.; Merrill, L. (2009). "Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-analysis of Selective Exposure to Information". Psychological Bulletin. 135 (4): 555–588. doi:10.1037/a0015701. PMC 4797953Freely accessible. PMID 19586162. 
  25. ^ Aronson, E. (1995). The Social Animal. New York: W.H. Freeman and Co.
  26. ^ Lepper, M. R.; Greene, D. (1975). "Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 31 (3): 479–486. doi:10.1037/h0076484. 
  27. ^ a b Guzzetti, B.J.; Snyder, T.E.; Glass, G.V.; Gamas, W.S. (1993). "Promoting conceptual change in science: A comparative meta-analysis of instructional interventions from reading education and science education". Reading Research Quarterly. 28: 116–159. doi:10.2307/747886. JSTOR 747886. 
  28. ^ Graesser, A. C.; Baggett, W.; Williams, K. (1996). "Question-driven explanatory reasoning". Applied Cognitive Psychology. 10 (7): S17–S32. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199611)10:7<17::AID-ACP435>3.0.CO;2-7. 
  29. ^ Cooper, J. (2007). Cognitive dissonance: 50 years of a classic theory. London: Sage Publications.
  30. ^ Cooper, J., & Axsom, D. (1982). Integration of clinical and social psychology. Oxford University Press.
  31. ^ Mendonca, P. J.; Brehm, S. S. (1983). "Effects of choice on behavioral treatment of overweight children". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 1 (4): 343–358. doi:10.1521/jscp.1983.1.4.343. 
  32. ^ Cooper, J. (1980). "Reducing fears and increasing attentiveness: The role of dissonance reduction". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 47 (3): 452–460. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(80)90064-5. 
  33. ^ Axsom, D.; Cooper, J. (1985). "Cognitive dissonance and psychotherapy: The role of effort justification in inducing weight loss". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 21 (2): 149–160. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(85)90012-5. 
  34. ^ Stone, J.; Aronson, E.; Crain, A. L.; Winslow, M. P.; Fried, C. B. (1994). "Inducing hypocrisy as a means for encouraging young adults to use condoms". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 20 (1): 116–128. doi:10.1177/0146167294201012. 
  35. ^ Fried, C. B.; Aronson, E. (1995). "Hypocrisy, misattribution, and dissonance reduction". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 21 (9): 925–933. doi:10.1177/0146167295219007. 
  36. ^ Son Hing, L. S.; Li, W.; Zanna, M. P. (2002). "Inducing hypocrisy to reduce prejudicial responses among aversive racists". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 38: 71–78. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1484. 
  37. ^ Fointiat, V. (2004). "I know what I have to do, but…" When hypocrisy leads to behavioral change". Social Behavior and Personality. 32 (8): 741–746. doi:10.2224/sbp.2004.32.8.741. 
  38. ^ Kataria, Mitesh; Regner, Tobias (2015). "Honestly, why are you donating money to charity? An experimental study about self-awareness in status-seeking behavior". Theory and Decision. 79 (3): 493–515. doi:10.1007/s11238-014-9469-5. 
  39. ^ Nyborg, K. (2011). "I Don't Want to Hear About it: Rational Ignorance among Duty-Oriented Consumers". Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization. 79 (3): 263–274. doi:10.1016/j.jebo.2011.02.004. 
  40. ^ Gbadamosi, Ayantunji (January 2009). "Cognitive dissonance: The implicit explication in low-income consumers' shopping behaviour for "low-involvement" grocery products". International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. 37 (12): 1077–1095. doi:10.1108/09590550911005038. 
  41. ^ Mullikin, Lindsey J (2003). "Beyond reference pricing: Understanding consumers' encounters with unexpected prices". Journal of Products & Brand Management. 12 (3): 140–153. doi:10.1108/10610420310476906. 
  42. ^ a b Heider, F. (1960). The Gestalt Theory of Motivation. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 8, pp. 145–72.
  43. ^ Bem, D.J. (1965). "An Experimental Analysis of Self-persuasion". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1 (3): 199–218. doi:10.1016/0022-1031(65)90026-0. 
  44. ^ Bem, D.J. (1967). "Self-perception: An Alternative Interpretation of Cognitive Dissonance Phenomena" (PDF). Psychological Review. 74 (3): 183–200. doi:10.1037/h0024835. PMID 5342882. 
  45. ^ Zanna, M.; Cooper, J. (1974). "Dissonance and the Pill: An Attribution Approach to Studying the Arousal Properties of Dissonance". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 29 (5): 703–709. doi:10.1037/h0036651. PMID 4833431. 
  46. ^ Kiesler, C.A.; Pallak, M.S. (1976). "Arousal Properties of Dissonance Manipulations". Psychological Bulletin. 83 (6): 1014–1025. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1014. PMID 996211. 
  47. ^ Aronson, Elliot (1969). "The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: A Current Perspective". In Berkowitz, Leonard. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 4. Academic Press. pp. 1–34. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60075-1. ISBN 9780120152049. 
  48. ^ Tedeschi, J.T.; Schlenker, B.R.; Bonoma, T.V. (1971). "Cognitive Dissonance: Private Ratiocination or Public Spectacle?". American Psychologist. 26 (8): 685–695. doi:10.1037/h0032110. 
  49. ^ Coppin, G.; Delplanque, S.; Cayeux, I.; Porcherot, C.; Sander, D. (2010). "I'm No Longer Torn After Choice: How Explicit Choices Implicitly Shape Preferences of Odors". Psychological Science. 21 (8): 489–493. doi:10.1177/0956797610364115. PMID 20424088. 
  50. ^ Dupuit, J. (1969). On the measurement of the utility of public works. Readings in Welfare
  51. ^ Higgins, E. T. (1987). "Self-discrepancy: A Theory Relating Self and Affect" (PDF). Psychological Review. 94 (3): 319–340. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319. PMID 3615707. 
  52. ^ Cooper, Joel; Fazio, Russell H. (1984). "A New Look at Dissonance Theory". In Berkowitz, Leonard. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. 17. Academic Press. pp. 229–266. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60121-5. ISBN 9780120152179. 
  53. ^ Harmon-Jones, E.; Brehm, J.W.; Greenberg, J.; Simon, L.; Nelson, D.E. (1996). "Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance" (PDF). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 70 (1): 5–16. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.5. 
  54. ^ Chen, M.K.; Risen, J.L. (2010). "How choice affects and reflects preferences: Revisiting the free-choice paradigm". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 99 (4): 573–594. doi:10.1037/a0020217. PMID 20658837. 
  55. ^ Holden, Steinar (2013). "Do Choices Affect Preferences? Some Doubts and New Evidence" (PDF). Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 43: 83–94. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00983.x. 
  56. ^ a b Izuma, K.; Matsumoto, M.; Murayama, K.; Samejima, K.; Sadato, N.; Matsumoto, K. (2010). "Neural correlates of cognitive dissonance and choice-induced preference change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 107 (51): 22014–22019. doi:10.1073/pnas.1011879108. 
  57. ^ Sharot, T.; Velasquez, C. M.; Dolan, R. J. (2010). "Do decisions shape preference? Evidence from blind choice". Psychological Science. 21 (9): 1231–1235. doi:10.1177/0956797610379235. PMC 3196841Freely accessible. PMID 20679522. 
  58. ^ Risen, J.L.; Chen, M.K. (2010). "How to study choice-induced attitude change: Strategies for fixing the free-choice paradigm" (PDF). Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 4 (12): 1151–1164. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00323.x. 
  59. ^ Beckmann, J; Kuhl, J (1984). "Altering information to gain action control: Functional aspects of human information processing in decision making". Journal of Research in Personality. 18 (2): 224–237. doi:10.1016/0092-6566(84)90031-x. 
  60. ^ a b Harmon-Jones, E., 1999. Toward an understanding of the motivation underlying dissonance processes: is feeling personally responsible for the production of aversive consequences necessary to cause dissonance effects? In: Harmon-Jones, E., Mills, J., Cognitive Dissonance: Perspectives on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 71–99.
  61. ^ Harmon-Jones, E (2000a). "Cognitive dissonance and experienced negative affect: Evidence that dissonance increases experienced negative affect even in the absence of aversive consequences". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 26 (12): 1490–1501. doi:10.1177/01461672002612004. 
  62. ^ Jones, E. E., Gerard, H. B., 1967. Foundations of social psychology. New York: Wiley.
  63. ^ McGregor, I., Newby-Clark, I. R., Zanna, M. P., 1999. Epistemic discomfort is moderated by simultaneous accessibility of inconsistent elements. In: E. Harmon-Jones, J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology, Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 325–353.
  64. ^ a b Van Veen, V.; Krug, M.K.; Schooler, J.W.; Carter, C.S. (2009). "Neural activity predicts attitude change in cognitive dissonance" (PDF). Nature Neuroscience. 12 (11): 1469–1474. doi:10.1038/nn.2413. PMID 19759538. 
  65. ^ Sharot, T.; De Martino, B.; Dolan, R.J. (2009). "How choice reveals and shapes expected hedonic outcome" (PDF). Journal of Neuroscience. 29 (12): 3760–3765. doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4972-08.2009. PMC 2675705Freely accessible. PMID 19321772. 
  66. ^ Qin, J.; Kimel, S.; Kitayama, S.; Wang, X.; Yang, X.; Han, S. (2011). "How choice modifies preference: Neural correlates of choice justification". NeuroImage. 55 (1): 240–246. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2010.11.076. PMID 21130888. 
  67. ^ a b c Jarcho, Johanna M.; Berkman, Elliot T.; Lieberman, Matthew D. (2010). "The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making". Social Cognitive Affective Neuroscience. 6 (4): 460–467. doi:10.1093/scan/nsq054. PMC 3150852Freely accessible. PMID 20621961. 
  68. ^ Harmon-Jones, E (2003). "Anger and the behavioural approach system". Personality and Individual Differences. 35 (5): 995–1005. doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(02)00313-6. 
  69. ^ Harmon-Jones, E (2004). "Contributions From Research On Anger And Cognitive Dissonance To Understanding The Motivational Functions Of Asymmetrical Frontal Brain Activity". Biological Psychology. 67 (1–2): 51–76. doi:10.1016/j.biopsycho.2004.03.003. PMID 15130525. 
  70. ^ Amodio, D.M; Harmon-Jones, E; Devine, P.G; Curtin, J.J; Hartley, S (2004). "A Covert Neural signals for the control of unintentional race bias". Psychological Science. 15 (2): 88–93. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2004.01502003.x. PMID 14738514. 
  71. ^ Beauvois, J. L., Joule, R. V., 1996. A radical dissonance theory. London: Taylor and Francis.
  72. ^ Egan, L.C.; Santos, L.R.; Bloom, P. (2007). "The origins of cognitive dissonance: Evidence from children and monkeys" (PDF). Psychological Science. 18 (11): 978–983. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02012.x. PMID 17958712. 
  73. ^ a b Read, S.J.; Vanman, E.J.; Miller, L.C. (1997). "Connectionism, parallel constraint satisfaction processes, and Gestalt principles: (Re)Introducing cognitive dynamics to social psychology". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 1 (1): 26–53. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0101_3. PMID 15647127. 
  74. ^ Petty, R.E.; Briñol, P.; DeMarree, K.G. (2007). "The Meta-Cognitive Model (MCM) of attitudes: Implications for attitude measurement, change, and strength". Social Cognition. 25 (5): 657–686. doi:10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.657. 
  75. ^ Van Overwalle, F.; Jordens, K. (2002). "An adaptive connectionist model of cognitive dissonance". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 6 (3): 204–231. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_6. 
  76. ^ Monroe, B.M.; Read, S.J. (2008). "A general connectionist model of attitude structure and change: The ACS (Attitudes as Constraint Satisfaction) Model". Psychological Review. 115 (3): 733–759. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.115.3.733. PMID 18729597. 
  77. ^ Van Harreveld, F.; der Pligt, J.; de Liver, Y. (2009). "The agony of ambivalence and ways to resolve it: Introducing the MAID model". Personality and Social Psychology Review. 13 (1): 45–61. doi:10.1177/1088868308324518. PMID 19144904. 

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

Videos
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cognitive_dissonance&oldid=763218729"