CRITICALLY EVALUATE THE THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. DISCUSS WHAT PHENOMENA IT CAN EXPLAIN AND HOW WELL IT EXPLAINS THEM COMPARED TO OTHER THEORIES.
Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the most widely researched theories in the field of Psychology, as it has many implications for different areas within the subject, for example, decision-making, happiness and attitudes. The theory was proposed by Leon Festinger in 1957, describing it as an “unpleasant psychological state which occurs when people notice that their attitudes and behaviour are inconsistent with each other” (Festinger, 1957). This essay will address basic evidence for the theory, phenomena it can explain with research to support and challenges to the theory, such as self-perception theory.
FINISH INTRO
Cognitive dissonance was demonstrated in Festinger and Carlsmith’s 1959 study in which participants were asked to complete repetitive tasks, likely considered boring, and were then asked at the end of the study to convince the next ‘participant’ (a confederate) that the task was enjoyable and interesting. One group of participants were paid $1 and another $20, along with a control condition who were not paid anything. It was predicted that participants who agreed to lie to the next ‘participant’ would be put in a state of cognitive dissonance, as they performed a behaviour that was inconsistent with their attitudes. $1 was not deemed enough to justify lying, therefore it was believed the participants in this condition would change their attitudes towards the experiment. Since they could not attribute the lie to the monetary reward, in order to resolve the conflict between their behaviour and their attitudes they would have to revise their attitudes, and the results confirmed this. However, it was found that despite being paid more, those in the $20 condition were able to attribute their behaviour to the monetary reward, suggesting that paying participants more to convince others a task is interesting caused them to believe they enjoyed it less (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Festinger (1957) argued that people change how they think rather than how they behave as it is easier, and there is a subconscious need to reduce dissonance. However, there was controversy around this theory as dissonance is not something which can be physically observed, meaning it could be considered a subjective measure. Moreover, dissonance could be considered a vague term, as it is questionable whether cognitive dissonance is a perception, feeling or a feeling about perception, and Festinger himself gave it a brief description, referring to it as a “motivating state of affairs” (Festinger, 1962)
According to the Cooper and Fazio model (1984), in order for dissonance to produce attitude change, an individual must realise the inconsistency has negative effects and take responsibility for the action, then they must experience physiological arousal, and the individual must attribute the physiological arousal to the action itself. Cognitive dissonance theory could be considered useful to Psychology as it provided four distinguishable paradigms for research; effects of decisions, effects of ‘forced compliance’, voluntary versus involuntary exposure to information and the role of social support in group influence processes. Furthermore, the theory could be considered to have greatly improved our understanding of behaviour and how attitudes can be changed (Brehm, 2007). It is believed that the amount of dissonance depends on the importance of the cognitions and whether the cognitions the person holds are consistent or not with a particular cognition (Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C. & Levy, 2015). This particular cognition is known as the ‘generative cognition’ (Beauvois & Joule, 1996), which is the cognition most resistant to being changed. Elliot and Devine conducted an experiment which aimed to “directly empirically validate the psychological discomfort component of dissonance”, and the results suggested that the discomfort felt is a distinct affective consequence of the dissonance induction (Elliot & Devine, 1994). Therefore, this appears to support Festinger’s notion of cognitive dissonance as a “motivational state of affairs” (Festinger, 1962), and greatly contrasts to self-perception theory, which is defined as an individual’s ability to respond differentially to his own behaviour and its controlling variables, and is a product of social interaction (Mead, 1934; Ryle, 1949; Skinner, 1957, as cited in Bem, 1967). Thus, cognitive dissonance has been found to be experienced as a psychological discomfort, and so could be defined as a feeling, and research suggests attitude change is efficient in eliminating dissonance.
Cognitive dissonance theory could be considered to explain certain patterns of behaviour, such as smoking, dietary choices, and in every-day decision making situations. Research has found that animal behaviour can be explained by cognitive dissonance. For example, Egan, Santos and Bloom (2007) conducted a study to explore the origins of cognitive dissonance, and whether it is a theory unique to humans, specifically adults as cognitive dissonance in children is limited. Their sample consisted of 4-year-old children and capuchin monkeys, and both groups yielded similar results in that they showed a decrease in preference for one of two equally preferred alternatives after they had chosen against it, but not when the experimenter had chosen against it. Therefore, children and monkeys appear to change their current preferences to fit with their past decisions, meaning they change their current attitudes and preferences to match the choices they made in previous decisions more closely. Hence, this research supports the theory of cognitive dissonance and that there are underlying mechanisms, however, these may have originated both developmentally and evolutionarily earlier than previous research suggested. Despite cognitive dissonance having been researched by Aronson and Carlsmith (1963), Egan et al. criticise their study (Egan, Santos, & Bloom, 2007). They found that children who were mildly warned by the experimenter not to play with an attractive toy later liked the toy less than children who had been severely warned not to play with it. This finding was interpreted in terms of cognitive dissonance, as the effect relied on the induced behaviour of obedience to an adult’s instructions, therefore not a self-driven decision, meaning it could be considered as an invalid measure of cognitive dissonance. Egan et al. argue that Aronson and Carlsmith’s study does not provide clear evidence that children are motivated to resolve cognitive dissonance in their everyday lives, however, their own study does appear to demonstrate that they do, also providing evidence animals experience it.
Further phenomena which cognitive dissonance can explain is dietary choices, for example, people who consume meat. It is suggested that viewing animals as sentient causes dissonance, as humans are often motivated to see themselves as special and separate from other animals (Harmon-Jones, Haslam, & Bastian, 2017). Furthermore, awareness of animal sentience makes it more difficult to exploit them (Bastian et al, 2012), and humans’ animal nature serves as a reminder of personal mortality, a decidedly dissonant cognition (Goldenberg et al., 2001, as cited by Harmon-Jones, Haslam, & Bastian, 2017). Bastian et al. conducted a number of studies to research whether dissonance motivates people to deny minds to animals. They found that animals considered appropriate for human consumption are given diminished mental capacities, meat eaters are motivated to deny minds to animals when reminded of the link between meat and animal suffering, and immediate consumption of meat increases mind denial, and this reduces the negative affect felt. This research was partly inspired by the “meat paradox” (Loughnan, Haslam, & Bastian, 2010), which is created by an “inconsistency between a love for animals and enjoyment of meat”. This could be considered to link to the action-based model proposed by Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., and Levy (2015), which suggests that people are motivated to reduce cognitive conflicts that interfere with effective behaviour, as denying minds to animals makes the harm they experience less upsetting, which in turn facilitates meat consumption. Moreover, dissonance involves negative effect (Harmon-Jones, 2000, as cited by Bastian et al., 2012), and negative effect can be associated with eating animals and is often a strong motivator in those who make the moral choice to become vegetarian (Bastian et al, 2012). Therefore, research suggests people deny minds to the animals they consume, and this denial lessens the unpleasant affective feeling linked with the consumption of meat.
Although cognitive dissonance is a widely researched theory and is considered to explain many phenomena, many psychologists opposed the theory when it was first introduced, and preferred theories such as reinforcement to explain certain behaviour. Brehm discusses challenges to cognitive dissonance theory in ‘A Brief History of Dissonance Theory’ (2007), particularly considering Bem’s experiments which imply self-perception theory is more adequate in terms of explaining phenomena. Bem argued that the reduction of dissonance demonstrated an inference that a person made about the self, therefore it was not the effect of a motivational state as Festinger implied.
Theories such as self-perception theory and