Cognitive Dissonance
Dissonance theory predicts that people remember
the plausible arguments agreeing with their own
positions and the implausible arguments agreeing with the opposing position
Always produces discomfort
Impact bias
Three ways to reduce the discomfort
By changing our behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition
By attempting to justify our behavior through
changing one of the dissonant cognitions
By attempting to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions
One way to do this is through self-affirmation
People fail to realize that dissonance reduction
will save them from future anguish
(it is largely unconscious)
Dissonance is most painful, and we are most motivated to reduce it, when our self-concept or self-esteem is threatened by the cognition that we have done something that violates our view of ourselves
People with higher self-esteem experience
the most dissonance when they behave in ways
contrary to their high opinion of themselves
Raising general self-esteem can help to lead to better performance. However, bolstering self-esteem can't be done in an artificial way, otherwise this self-affirmation can backfire.
Postdecision dissonance
The more important the decision,
the greater the dissonance
The permanence of the decision:
The more difficult it is to revoke the decision,
the stronger the need to reduce dissonance.
Distorting our likes and dislikes
Creating the illusion of irrevocability
(because irrevocability always increases
dissonance and the motivation to reduce it)
Lowballing
The feeling of commitment triggered the anticipation of an exciting event; to have it thwarted would be a big letdown
Although the final price is substantially higher, it is probably only slightly higher than the price elsewhere. Under these circumstances, the customer who has already filled out the forms, written out the check, etc. just goes ahead and buys it.
Although the decision is reversible,
there is a commitment of sorts
The decision to behave immorally:
How people reduce dissonance following a difficult moral decision has implications for whether they behave more or less ethically in the future
If you decide to e.g. cheat, you would try to justify the action;
an efficient path to reduce dissonance would involve changing your attitude about cheating (adopt a more lenient attitude)
If after a difficult struggle, you decide not to cheat,
you may convince yourself that cheating is really bad
to justify giving up a good grade
Dissonance in the brain
Experiments with monkeys and chimps
support the notion that cognitive dissonance
has some built in, adaptive functions
"Win-stay" strategy was evolutionarily adaptive,
at least in the selection of food
The areas of the brain activated during dissonance include the striatum and other highly specific areas within the prefrontal cortex (the site prominently involved in planning and decision making)
Westen (2006): The reasoning areas of the brain virtually shut down when a person is confronted with dissonant information and the emotion circuits of the brain light up when consonance is restored
Dissonance across cultures
In collectivist societies, dissonance-reducing behaviors might be less prevalent, at least on the surface
More likely to find behaviour aimed at maintaining group harmony and less likely to see people justifying their own personal misbehaviour -- but more likely to see people experiencing dissonance when their behaviour shames or disappoints others
Sakai (1999): In Japan, many people vicariously experience dissonance on the part of someone they know and like. The observers' attitudes change to conform to those of their dissonance-reducing friends.
In subsequent experiments, Japanese participants justified their choices when they felt others were observing them while they were making their decision, but not later; this pattern was reversed for Americans
Nonetheless, most causes of dissonance are international and intergenerational
Self-justification in everyday life
The justification of effort
External vs internal justification
When you can't find external justification for your behaviour, you will attempt to find internal justification
E.g. counterattitudinal advoacy -- when you do this with little external justification, what you believe begins to conform more and more to the lie you told
Punishment and self-persuasion
E.g. Insufficient punishment -- leveraging on the
lasting effects of self-persuasion
Hypocrisy induction
Justifying good deeds and harmful acts
The Ben Franklin Effect: Justifying acts of kindness
Dehumanizing the enemy: Justifying cruelty