Cognitive+Dissonance+Theory

= Summary = toc

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) focuses on a psychological process similar to rationalization. This theory is based on the belief that when we encounter stimuli that do not agree with our previously held cognitions, we experience dissonance, or an uncomfortable feeling resulting from disequilibrium. We consequently feel motivated to achieve consonance, or equilibrium, by making changes in behavior and attitude. There are four basic assumptions in CDT: “human beings desire consistency in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors; dissonance is created by psychological inconsistencies; dissonance is an aversive state that drives people to actions with measurable effects; and dissonance motivates efforts to achieve consonance and efforts towards dissonance reduction” (West and Turner 115). An important distinction to make in reference to the second assumption is that between logical and psychological consistency. We do not care if our cognitions are logically consistent, as long as they are psychologically consistent. For example, if a girl has a huge crush on Harry Styles from One Direction, it is logically inconsistent to believe that her desire to date him will one day actualize (seeing as he is an international pop star and, therefore, her dating him is not very likely). However, this logical inconsistency does not cause her any dissonance. What // would // cause dissonance would be a conflict between her knowledge of her all-consuming love for Harry Styles and the belief (or knowledge) that they will never be together. This psychological inconsistency, or conflicting cognitions, is what causes dissonance.

There are several different ways that we try to reduce or eliminate dissonance: adding more consistent beliefs and removing inconsistent ones, minimizing inconsistent beliefs by thinking of them as insignificant, and seeking information that will change our previous beliefs and therefore even out our cognitive state. We achieve these aims by utilizing the following processes: selective exposure, selective attention, selective interpretation, and selective retention. Selective exposure is defined as “seeking consistent information not already present” (West and Turner 118). For example, the girl in the previous example would Google search “girls who dated their celebrity crush” and feel comforted by Katie Holmes’s good fortune (pre-divorce, of course). Selective attention is defined as “looking at consistent information once it is there” (West and Turner 118). In this respect, the girl would focus on the fact that Harry Styles said he would date a fan in an interview she once saw, and ignore articles talking about the masses of teenage girls that follow him everywhere. Selective interpretation is defined as “interpreting ambiguous information so that it becomes consistent” (West and Turner 119). Using this process, the girl might interpret Harry Styles’ short and ill-fated relationships with celebrities as a sign that he prefers to date girls who are not famous. Lastly, selective retention is defined as “remembering and learning consistent information with much greater ability than we do inconsistent information” (West and Turner 119). All these processes ultimately help an individual suffering from dissonance to avoid stimuli that will increase dissonance. We take on new behaviors that encourage consistency in our cognitions.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory assumes that arousal generated by dissonance will motivate the girl in the previous example to avoid situations that create inconsistencies in her thought process, and that she will always work to restore the consistent belief she has that she will one day date Harry Styles. For example: The girl has a belief that she will date Harry Styles and she believes that if others have dated their celebrity crushes, then she also has a chance. Her attitude towards that belief is positive, as she fully believes that it will happen, further emphasized by her Google searches that have her believe that such a thing is possible. Her behavior is then affected, as she ignores other girls that might like Harry Styles as much as she does, so she adopts a sort of tunnel vision over her infatuation over Harry Styles.

Works Cited: West, Richard L., and Lynn H. Turner. // Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and // // Application //. Boston: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Print.

= Key Terms and Definitions =


 * 1) ** cognitions ** : ways of knowing, beliefs, judgments, and thoughts
 * 2) **c****ognit** **ive dissonance**: feeling of discomfort resulting from inconsistent attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors
 * 3) ** magnitude of dissonance ** : the quantitative amount of discomfort felt, determined by: importance: how significant the issue is dissonance ratio: the amount of consonant cognitions relative to the dissonant ones rationale: the reasoning employed to explain the inconsistency
 * 4) ** minimal justification ** : offering the least amount of incentive necessary to obtain compliance
 * 5) **rationale: **the reasoning employed to explain an inconsistency

=Outside Research =

An experiment was performed at a campus recreation facility at the University of California at Santa Cruz to evaluate the effects of dissonance in a pro-attitudinal advocacy paradigm. Typically, in persuasion situations, people change their opinions based on influence from an outside source. However, these opinion and attitude changes are often impermanent. Dissonance-generated persuasion differs in that it causes people to consider their own self-concept. When people have two thoughts that are psychologically inconsistent, they seek to change their thoughts and behaviors in order to alleviate these inconsistencies.

Rather than employing logical appeals to save water, this experiment seeks to motivate subjects by arousing dissonance. Previously, dissonance research was performed primarily in counter-attitudinal experiments. This experiment involves subjects that already favor water conservation.

Two factors, mindfulness and commitment, were manipulated to create four treatments: mindful-only, commitment-only, mindful-plus-commitment (hypocrisy), and unmindful/no commitment (no-treatment control). The dependent variable was water use, which was measured in length of the subjects’ showers. As a measure of subjects’ intentions to conserve water, it was also noted whether the subjects turned off the shower while applying soap, shampoo, or conditioner.

The mindful-only treatment consisted of a brief survey with questions designed to remind subjects that they had sometimes wasted water while showering. In the commitment-only treatment, subjects were asked to print their names on a flyer that would be distributed around campus encouraging people to conserve water. Subjects in the hypocrisy condition (mindful-plus-commitment) were asked to respond to the “mindfulness” survey and then sign the “commitment” flyer. The no-treatment control group was used as a baseline for comparison, with subjects influenced only the interventions already instituted by the university to save water.

A comparison of mean shower times revealed a substantial difference between the hypocrisy group and control group. Similarly, subjects in the hypocrisy, mindful-only, and commitment-only groups turned off the shower more often than control subjects. Though this might not have reduced actual times and conserved water, it demonstrates subjects making a conscious effort to conserve water. Hypocrisy subjects, who were expected to experience the most dissonance, showed the greatest efforts to conserve water. This is consistent with the prediction that arousing dissonance would lead to greater efforts to conserve water.

This experiment proves that creating dissonance had a significant impact on the subjects’ efforts to conserve water. Before beginning the experiment all subjects said that they were in favor of water conservation. Rather than just giving subjects information about water conservation, this experiment reminded subjects that they had normally wasted water while showering or had made them more aware of the importance of water conservation, or both of these treatments. This creates a clear discrepancy between the subjects’ actions and beliefs. As predicted, subjects changed their behaviors to ease this dissonance. “In particular, interventions along the lines of our hypocrisy manipulation may prove successful in motivating people to act in accordance with their already favorable attitudes toward a given issue, such as water conservation, condom use, recycling, etc.” (Dickerson 852). Behaviors motivated by dissonance reduction tend to be more permanent and may be useful for application in real-world settings.

Works Cited: Dickerson, Chris Ann. "Using Cognitive Dissonance to Encourage Water Conservation."//Journal of Applied Social Psychology// 22.11 (1992): 841-54. //SocINDEX with Full Text//. Web. 4 Oct. 2013.

[|Fordham University Library - Using Cognitive Dissonance to Encourage Water Conservation]

=Additional Material =