Inconsistencies:: Can We Live With Them?
Inconsistencies:: Can We Live With Them?
Despite studies proving that smoking causes cancer, many smokers still deny the correlation
between the two. Though such levels of denial seem almost unfathomable, the key to
unlocking this perplexing mystery may lie within the human psyche.
Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort that occurs when an
individual holds two conflicting thoughts in consideration at the same time. The term was
coined in 1957 by esteemed psychologist Leon Festinger, who proposed that humans sought
to attain internal consistency. This would later go on to be the hypothesis from which he
formulated his theory of cognitive dissonance. He believed that people had an innate desire to
make sure that their beliefs and behaviour aligned with each other.
The level of dissonance experienced varies across individuals and hinges on
circumstantial factors. For instance, cognitions which are more personal to an individual,
such as those regarding self-perception, are more likely to cause greater amounts of
dissonance. The greater the dissonance, the greater the pressure to reduce such feelings of
discomfort.
Under dissonance theory, people are motivated to reduce the dissonance they feel
whenever their actions contradict their beliefs or vice versa. Festinger proposed three
methods of doing so. Firstly, people will direct their focus to reassuring beliefs in order to
overcome dissonant belief or behavior. Second, they will decrease the significance of the
contradicting belief. Lastly, they alter the conflicting belief, to make it consistent with others.
A study done by Jack Brehm explores the theory of cognitive dissonance under a decisionmaking paradigm. He hypothesized that when an individual is forced to make a choice
between two equally desirable products, dissonance arises. He predicted that subjects would
reduce dissonance by giving the chosen object a higher rating, and rating the alternative
lower. The subjects consisted of 225 female students.
Subjects were told to rate 8 household appliances. They were then told to choose from
two objects which were selected at random as payment. In actuality, the appliances chosen
were determined by the degree of dissonance to be created. The experimenter split the
subjects into four groups. A control group whereby the appliance is decided at random for the
subject. A high dissonance group where one of the two objects presented is rated at one scale
lower. Similarly, for medium dissonance, it is two scales lower, and for low dissonance three
scales lower. After choosing the appliance, the subjects re-rated the desirability of the 8
objects again.
After comparing the new ratings to the original, subjects did give the chosen
alternative a higher rating and the un-chosen one a lower rating. The overall change in rating
was most prominent in the high dissonance group. Thus, it supports his hypothesis that being
forced to choose between two alternatives results in dissonance. Subjects had the underlying
need to convince themselves of having made the right decision, resulting in them playing up
the advantages of their chosen alternative while downplaying the advantages of the un-chosen
alternative.
Understanding the theory of cognitive dissonance is useful not only for the individual
but also useful in the field of psychology itself as cognitive dissonance has been used as a
REFERENCES
Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. M. (2005). Social psychology.
Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3), 384-389.