Cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the perception of incompatibility between two cognitions, which can be defined as any element of knowledge, including attitude, emotion, belief, or behavior. The theory of cognitive dissonance holds that contradicting cognitions serve as a driving force that compels the mind to acquire or invent new thoughts or beliefs, or to modify existing beliefs, so as to reduce the amount of dissonance (conflict) between cognitions. Experiments have attempted to quantify this hypothetical drive.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by the psychologist Leon Festinger in 1956 after observing the counterintuitive belief persistence of members of a UFO doomsday cult and their increased proselytization after the leader's prophecy failed. The failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a suburban housewife in 1956, became a disconfirmed expectancy that increased dissonance between cognitions, thereby causing most members of the impromptu cult to lessen the dissonance by accepting a new prophecy; that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake.[1]

Empirical Research into Cognitive Dissonance

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Several experimental methods were used as evidence for cognitive dissonance. These were:

• Induced compliance studies, where people are asked to act in ways contrary to their attitudes;
• Postdecisional studies, where opinions of rejected alternatives after a decision are studied;
• Studies of how people seek out information that is consonant rather than dissonant with their own views, so as to avoid cognitive dissonance

Induced Compliance Studies

Origins and one of the first experiments testing the theory

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were made to perform tedious and meaningless tasks, consisting of turning pegs quarter-turns, then removing them from a board, then putting them back in, and so forth. Participants rated these tasks very negatively. After a long period of doing this, students were told the experiment was over and they could leave. This is an example of an induced compliance study.

However, the experimenter then asked the subject for a small favor. They were told that a needed research assistant was not able to make it to the experiment, and the participant was asked to fill in and try to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not requested to perform the favor.

When asked to rate the peg-turning tasks later, those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 group and control group. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. Experimenters theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions "I told some one that 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, it is argued, had an obvious external justification for their behavior.

The researchers further speculated that with only $1, subjects faced insufficient justification and therefore "cognitive dissonance", so when they were asked to lie about the tasks, they sought to relieve this hypothetical stress by changing their attitude. This process allows the subject to genuinely believe that the tasks were enjoyable.

Put simply, the experimenters concluded that human beings, when asked to lie without being given sufficient justification, will convince themselves that the lie they are asked to tell is the truth.

This study has been criticised, on the grounds that being paid twenty dollars may have aroused the suspicion of some participants. In the 1960s, experimenters used counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people were paid varying amounts of money (e.g. one or ten dollars) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own. These studies also found support for dissonance theory.

Postdecisional Dissonance Studies

Jack Brehm's famous experiment looked at how housewives, after making a decision, favoured the alternatives which they had selected more strongly (Brehm, 1956). This can be explained in dissonance terms - to go on wishing for rejected alternatives would arouse dissonance between the cognitions "I chose something else" and "I preferred that option".

Basic theory

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

Cognitions which contradict each other are said to be "dissonant," while cognitions which agree with each other are said to be "consonant." Cognitions which neither agree nor disagree with each other are said to be "irrelevant."

The introduction of new cognition that is dissonant with a currently held cognition creates a state of "dissonance," the magnitude of which relates to the relative importance of the involved cognitions. Dissonance can be reduced either by eliminating dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. The maximum possible dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant cognition; therefore, once dissonance reaches a level that overcomes the resistance of one of the cognitions involved, that cognition will be changed or eliminated, and dissonance will be reduced.

This leads some people who feel dissonance to seek information that will reduce dissonance and avoid information that will increase dissonance. People who are involuntarily exposed to information that increases dissonance are likely to discount that information, either by ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

Conflicting cognitions - examples

Everyday example

This section does not cite any references or sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. (help, get involved!) Unverifiable material may be challenged and removed.

After a superficial (or no) evaluation of various blenders, Luke purchases one. However, while his decision is consonant with the good aspects of his choice and with the defects of the blenders he rejected; it is dissonant with any known (or unknown) defects of his choice and with the good aspects of the rejects.

Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly. Or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine wanting, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by his blender's dissonant-side at which point he starts to second-guess his choice. (buyer's remorse.)

Known defects: Luke's previously unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, for a "placeholder", if you will. Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant ramping-up of the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance.

Under either scenario, Luke experiences full-blown cognitive dissonance when dissonance outweights consonance.

Tipping point: Luke may act to resolve the imbalance in favor of consonance by exchanging his blender for one that more fully meets his expectations. Or, if no exchange is possible and if Luke is cognitively dissonant enough, he may even outright discard his blender and buy one which is less dissonance inducing, as consonance should always trump dissonance.

Great Disappointment

The Great Disappointment was a period in the early history of certain Christian denominations in the United States, which began when Jesus failed to reappear on the appointed day of October 22, 1844 as some Christians had expected.

William Miller

Between 1831 and 1844, William Miller, a Baptist preacher, launched what has been called by historians as Second Great Awakening, of which the Millerite movement was a major part. Miller preached a set of fourteen rules for the interpretation of the Bible. Based on his study of the prophecy of Daniel 8:14, Miller calculated that Jesus would return to Earth sometime between 21 March 1843 and 21 March 1844. After the latter date came and went, the date was revised and set as October 22, 1844 based on the yearly Day of Atonement in Karaite Judaism.

When Jesus did not appear, Miller's followers experienced what came to be called "the Great Disappointment". Most of the thousands of followers left the movement. A few, however, went back to their Bibles to find out why they had been disappointed. A group of the remaining followers concluded that the prophecy predicted not that Jesus would return to earth in 1844, but that investigative judgement in heaven would begin in that year.

Miller recorded his personal disappointment in his memoirs: "Were I to live my life over again, with the same evidence that I then had, to be honest with God and man, I should have to do as I have done. I confess my error, and acknowledge my disappointment." Miller continued to wait for the second coming until his death in 1849.

Repercussions

Seventh-day Adventists

When Seventh-day Adventist Church historians write about the morning of October 23 they refer to a vision said to have been received by Hiram Edson (1806-1882), an early Adventist. Edson claimed he had a vision that indicated the date predicted by Miller was in fact correct. Later Bible study and visions led to the belief by the early Seventh-day Adventists that Christ went into the second apartment of the heavenly sanctuary in 1844 to begin the investigative judgment of both righteous and wicked to see who is worthy of going to heaven. This investigative judgment is said to take place prior to his second coming, which they believe to be very soon. A number of issues related to the doctrine of this investigative judgement were raised by Adventist theologian Desmond Ford in the 1970s.

Charles Taze Russell and Jehovah's Witnesses

Jonas Wendell, an adventist preacher, experienced periods of weak faith after 1844. After studying bible chronology, he came to the conclusion that the Second Coming would be in 1868, and in 1870 published a booklet concluding it was to be in 1873.

Charles Taze Russell was in turn influenced by Jonas Wendell (as well as by the Millerites in general), and predicted the Second Coming for 1874. One-time Millerite ministers George Storrs (1796-1879) and George Stetson proved to be a great assistance and guide to the development and growth of his worldwide ministry, the Bible Student movement. A schism in that movement occurred in 1933, where the leadership changed the date of the Second Coming to 1914. The main branch of that movement came to be known as the Jehovah's Witnesses, while many members refused the change; Bible Students today still hold that the Second Coming was in 1874.

Religious Studies

The Great Disappointment is viewed as an example of how the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance manifests itself through disconfirmed expectancies which often arise in a religious context.[2] The theory was formed in part by observing the failed message of earth's destruction, sent by aliens to a suburban housewife, in 1956, causing most members of an impromptu cult to increase their commitment to a new prophecy, that the aliens had instead spared the planet for their sake. The cognitive tension between belief in the failed prediction of Jesus' reappearance in 1844 and belief that such an appearance would occur led quickly to a variety of new explanations. The various solutions to this individual struggle of faith form a part of the teachings of the different groups that outlived the disappointment.

Other references

Bahá'í

Members of the Bahá'í Faith believe that Miller's interpretation of signs and dates of the coming of Jesus were, for the most part, correct. They believe that the fulfillment of biblical prophecies of the coming of Christ were fulfilled by the fore-runner of their own religion, the Báb, who declared himself on May 23, 1844, and began openly teaching in Persia in October 1844 that he was the Promised One. Several Bahá'í books and pamphlets make mention of the Millerites and the prophecies used by Miller, most notably William Sears' Thief in the Night.

The Fox and the Grapes Fable

The Fox and the Grapes is a fable attributed to Aesop. The protagonist, a fox, upon failing to find a way to reach grapes hanging high up on a vine, retreated and said, "The grapes are sour anyway!". The moral is stated at the end of the fable as:

It is easy to despise what you cannot get.

The English idiom "sour grapes", derived from this fable, refers to the denial of one's desire for something that one fails to acquire or sometimes to the person with such denial. Similar expressions also exist in other languages. In psychology, this behavior is known as rationalization. It may also be called reduction of cognitive dissonance.

In colloquial speech the idiom is often applied to someone who loses and fails to do so gracefully. Strictly speaking though, it should be applied to someone who, after losing, denies the intention to win altogether.

Frank Tashlin adapted the tale into a 1941 Color Rhapsodies short for Screen Gems/Columbia Pictures. The Fox and the Grapes marked the first appearance of Screen Gems' most popular characters, The Fox and the Crow.

Similar Persian (Iranian) idiom: The cat can not reach the meat, says it smells bad!

Qualifications to the Basic Theory

Aronson (1969) challenged the basic theory by linking it to the self-concept. He said that cognitive dissonance did not arise because people experience dissonance between conflicting cognitions; rather, it surfaced when people saw their actions as conflicting with their self-concept. Thus, in the Festinger and Carlsmith study, Aronson would interpret the dissonance as between "I am an honest person" and "I lied to some one about finding a task interesting". Thus, according to Aronson, people would not experience dissonance in this situation if their self-concept involved perception of the self as a liar. More recently, Tedeschi has argued that maintaining cognitive consistency is a way to protect public self-image (Tedeschi, Schlenker & Bonoma, 1971). From 1965, Daryl Bem (1965; 1967) has proposed self-perception theory as an alternative to cognitive dissonance theory. This states that people do not have inner access to their own attitudes - let alone whether they are in conflict. Bem interpreted people in the Festinger and Carlsmith study as inferring their attitudes from their behaviour. Thus, when asked "Did you find that task interesting?" they would judge that, as they told some one they did, they must have done. This self-perception theory was based largely on the behaviourism of B.F. Skinner. Bem interprets those paid twenty dollars in the Festinger and Carlsmith study as being able to interpret their vocal behaviour as an example of what behaviourists such as B.F. Skinner call "mands" - that is, elements of speech that are commands and demands rather than mere statements. Consequently, these people would have not seen their vocal behaviour as an utterance describing their behaviour. Since, in many experimental situations, Bem's theory and Festinger's theory make similar predictions, it has been very difficult for experimental social psychologists to design a conclusive experiment that will provide more evidence for one rather than the other of these two theories. However, advocates of dissonance theory sometimes argue that of these two theories, only Festinger's theory predicts that certain processes in social cognition will increase arousal, although there is some dispute about how much Festinger's original theory really did imply that cognitive dissonance increased arousal. Therefore, from 1970 onwards, some psychologists have investigated whether being faced with situations where one's cognitions are likely to conflict, arousal is likely to increase, and have found experimental evidence that this is the case.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Volume 4, pp1-34. New York: Academic Press.
• Bem, D.J. (1965). An experimental analysis of self-persuasion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1, 199-218
• Bem, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183-200
• Brehm, J. (1956). Post-decision changes in desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384-389
• Festinger, Leon; co-authors Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter When Prophecy fails a Social and Psychological Study of a Modern Group That Predicted the Destruction of the World (1956)
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211. Full text.
• Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (1999). Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
• Sherman, S. J., & Gorkin, R. B. (1980). "Attitude bolstering when behavior is inconsistent with central attitudes". Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 388-403.
• Knox, R. E., & Inkster, J. A. (1968). "Postdecision dissonance at post time". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 319-323.
• Tedeschi, J.T., Schlenker, B.R. & Bonoma, T.V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26, 685-695

References

• Stone, Jon R. (2000). Expecting Armageddon: Essential Readings in Failed Prophecy. Routledge. ISBN 041592331X.

External links

• Introduction at ithaca.edu
• Introduction to Cognitive Dissonance: Progress on a Pivotal Theory in Social Psychology
• Paper: Cognitive dissonance in decision making
• Festinger and Carlsmith's original paper
• When Prophecies Fail: A Sociological Perspective on Failed Expectation in the Watchtower Society by Randall Waters from the Bethel Ministries Newsletter May/June 1990 (now the Free Minds Journal)

External links

• Story with pictures from umass.edu

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Cognitive_dissonance  ^history
• Great_Disappointment  ^history
• The_Fox_and_the_Grapes  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Cognitive dissonance"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.