Cognitive dissonance has undergone change since its introduction by Festinger in 1957. The theory is counterintuitive and fits in social psychology theories called action-opinion theories. These theories propose that actions can influence the beliefs and attitudes undertaken by an individual. The dissonance theory proposes that humans are sensitive to inconsistencies between actions and belief (Bem, 2017). In this regard, an alarm goes off whenever an individual takes an action that contradicts with his belief system. Consequently, individuals act to correct the dissonance caused by the inconsistency. Individuals are therefore not comfortable when they violate their principles, but feel a mental anguish depending on the degree of dissonance. Individuals can thus choose to solve the dissonance either through change of beliefs, change of action or change of the perception of the action. The theoretical perspectives of dissonance represent the diversity of perceptions held by respondents regarding the consequences of their choices.
Festinger and Carlsmith carried out an experiment to test the level of dissonance by asking volunteers to engage in a boring task. The participants were required to agree upon a task that they considered as boring and tell a confederate that the task was interesting. As a motivator, half of the subjects received $1, while the rest received a generous value of $20. Based on the behavior enforcement theory, it was expected that the participants who received more compensation would enjoy the task more than those that were paid less (Bem, 2017). However, the cognitive dissonance theory forecasted that those with less monetary incentive would experience more dissonance; they were expected to perform a mundane task and lie to the confederate at very little cost. The results of the theory proved that those with $1 considered the task more interesting and were able to deal within the dissonance faster. The experiment tested a “mentalistic” theory and a behaviorist theory at the same time. It proved that mental processes influence individual behavior and that the degree of dissonance is dependent upon several intervening factors.
Leon Festinger (1957) conducted an experiment that proved that dissonance may be depicted in individuals who fail to alter the behavior. In the experiment, Festinger identified members of a cult who held the view that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood (Bem, 2017). He observed the behavior of the cult members when the occurrence failed to take place. The conduct of the fringe members was distinctively different from that of the staunchest members. Whereas the fringe members realized the folly of their faith, the devoted members reinforced their beliefs by proposing that it was the faithfulness of the cult members that preserved the earth from destruction.
The results of the experiment can be used to explain the conduct of people who continue smoking in full knowledge of the health challenges of the habit. The experiment shows that individuals can opt to change their attitudes instead of behavior as an alternative to avoiding disharmony ((Morvan & O’Connor, 2017). Known as the principle of cognitive consistency, it states that something must change to remove the inconsistency. The common way of dealing with dissonance is the change of behavior or its elimination altogether. Smokers who recognize that health effects of the habit can choose to quit the habit. New information about the phenomenon may, however, diminish the degree of dissonance. Smokers may rationalize the information that research has not proved beyond a measure of doubt that smoking is the cause of lung cancer. Consequently, they may continue to smoke regardless of the health dangers. Belief may also inform people’s continued adoption of a behavior regardless of the negative consequences. An ideology of living for the moment may constrain people to postpone dissonance action. Smokers may enjoy the pleasures of smoking and consider the behavior more pleasurable compared to a longer life without the happiness they derive from the substance (Risen & Chen, 2010). The ongoing discussion justifies why people in similar dangerous situations take different courses of action.
Individuals sometimes respond to dissonance by changing attitude. Brehn proposed that dissonance is produced by the action of an individual to choose an alternative over a nearer option because any negative thought about the alternative of choice or a positive sentiment about the rejected alternative may conflict with the decision. The individual deals with the inconsistency by shifting his preference in a way that makes them closer to his choice (Blackman, Keller and Cooper, 2016).
The Free-choice paradigm (FCP) experiment involved an activity where participants were requested to rate selected goods. They were then asked to choose between the two items in the original set in a choice that led to a closer rating. The rate could be as close as 4.0 to 4.4 or a ranking of #7 and #9. The participants were then asked to re-rate or re-rank the items in the list (Blackman, Keller, & Cooper, 2016). A calculation about the chosen spread is then done by adding the amount the selected item enhances to the amount the rejected item minimizes. The research was meant to ascertain how the choice that an individual makes influences successive preferences. Participants in the experiment are not selected randomly and lead to participants engaging in self-selection regarding the calculation of the chosen spread. The researcher can re-enact the experiment by making use of a control group and ensuring that the members rank twice but are not allowed to choose the items in the set (Blackman, Keller and Cooper, 2016). In this case, researchers calculate the high-low spread. The experimental participants who choose lowly ranked items are excluded from the exercise.
The FCP presents the dilemma of the role of mediators and directors regarding choice-induced dissonance. The researcher may not distinguish between the choice of the individual influenced by experimental manipulation or dissonance based on the participant’s choices. Several suggestions have been made to control the experiment process to ensure that dissonance is only a factor of the choices of the participant. Some scholars have suggested that all participants must make the same choice so that information about their preference is concealed. However, to accomplish this task, researchers must ensure that they ensure that the volunteers arrive at the same choice and should desist from manipulating the preferences. Other measures include controlling the information revealed by choice, removing the information revealed from choice or removal of the information from choice.
The “forbidden toy” experiment has been used to explain the behavior of children under tempting environments. The experiment that was carried out by Aronson and Carl-smith, a group of children were exposed to an attractive to but were asked not to play with it (Mead & Patrick, 2016). In response, the children were subjected to both severe and mild threats. Children who were exposed to mild threat responded by devaluing the activity either verbally or through behavioral avoidance. Observations proved that children faced with mild threat were more likely to produce in the self-perception of the child and increase the compliance levels with the adult’s subsequent instructions. However, severe threat could likely attract an opposite reaction in the child. The over justification achieved through severe threat could lead to a diminished resistance of the temptation. Although several scholars have interpreted the aims of the experiment, the major premise of the activity is that children who complied with the initial prohibition under mild threat demonstrate a higher ability to resist temptation as compared to those that comply under severe threat (Mead & Patrick, 2016). The experiment also revealed the power of self perception among children as a result of the initial forbidden toy instruction.
The five experiments to explain the three basic actions and principles of resonance; individuals feel uncomfortable when their behavior is inconsistent with their value system, they seek to change the behavior and change their attitude about the situation. The “forbidden toy” experiment proves that individuals have the inner capacity to exhibit certain forms of behavior when there is minimal threat. The mind can thus synthesize an excessively harsh threat and react in the negative. The theory can be used by parents to shape the behavior among children. However, there is no guarantee that the subjects will respond in a similar manner when the instruction is given by a different individual other than the one that had the first contact with the child. The experiment could also explain the correctional procedure for individuals facing incarceration. The move from punitive jail systems to corrective centers aligns with the ideas under the “forbidden toy” theory and suggests that even hard-core criminals can reform through a proper system of instruction devoid of excessive threat.
The free choice paradigm is however too technical and is prone to several uncertainties. Although the experiment yields behavior patterns following the initial choice of an individual, the researcher is expected to control several variables to obtain precise information. The final result adds little value to the understanding of the cognitive dissonance theory. The suggestion to ensure that all the participants arrive at the same choice in the initial exercise diminishes the free choice idea propagated by the experiment and introduces interference from the outset of the experiment. The mathematical calculations required to determine the motivations of choice do not make sense in light of the many interruptions to the exercise.
Festinger’s experiment precisely explains the motivations towards dissonance by presenting individuals with a difficult task. However, the options for the individual are too obvious that it may not bring out the expected response. There is no attempt by the scholar to control pertinent variables to the experiment like prior knowledge of the purpose of the research and the financial state of the respondent. The Festinger experiment also violates the ethics of research that proscribes the use of financial rewards by the researcher. The experiment may thus not produce the required results because the respondents are well aware of the intentions of the researcher and their behavior is determined by the amount of money they receive from the researcher.
Way Forward
Researchers must develop a knowledge system that integrates the cognitive theory ideas. The studies by the various scholars are helpful, but introduce divergent variables to cognitive dissonance. The variables must be grouped into major unified themes so as to develop a coherent framework for the definition of cognitive dissonance. The basic idea is that individual feel dissonance when their actions contradict with their value system; this must not be lost in academic discourse regarding dissonance. Researchers must develop models that are clear to understand devoid if excessive mathematical calculations. In situations where figures are required, researchers must develop easy formulas based on easy-to-understand observations. Researchers must also explore the contribution of personal factors like level of intelligence and knowledge capacity towards dissonance behavior. Psychologists must develop a general theoretical framework to accommodate the various approaches to cognitive dissonance. The different experiments can thus be placed in various categories based on the responses of the participants.
Conclusion
The various studies reveal that dissonance is determined by a variety of factors. The responses of different individuals to dissonance situations reveal that human activity is difficult to decipher. The cognitive dissonance theory is closely related to the behavioral approaches and a researcher must understand the triggers to motivation in order to predict the responses among members of society. The various experiments prove that individual behavior is complex and under given stimuli, a researcher can expect a range of responses. The theories do not provide solutions regarding dissonance, but rather educate the reader about the options available for any given phenomenon. Psychologists should look at the various experiments in cognition and place them in different categories based on perspective. In this manner, readers will develop clarity of ideas in understanding cognitive dissonance and its components. Through an elaborate framework, readers will appreciate the diversity of responses of in cognitive dissonance as informed by theoretical perspectives.