Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding contradictory ideas

simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive
to reduce dissonance. They do this by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and actions. Dissonance is
also reduced by justifying, blaming, and denying. It is one of the most influential and extensively
studied theories in social psychology.
Hindsight can clash with prior expectations, as, for example, with buyer's remorse after the
purchase of a new car. In a state of dissonance, people may feel surprise, dread, guilt, anger, or
embarrassment. Despite contrary evidence, people are biased to think of their choices as correct.
This bias gives dissonance theory its predictive power, shedding light on otherwise puzzling
irrational and destructive behavior.
A classical example of this idea (and the origin of the expression "sour grapes") is expressed in the
fable The Fox and the Grapes by Aesop (ca. 620–564 BCE). In the story, a fox sees some high-
hanging grapes and wishes to eat them. When the fox is unable to think of a way to reach them, he
surmises that the grapes are probably not worth eating, as they must not be ripe or that they are sour.
This example follows a pattern: one desires something, finds it unattainable, and reduces one's
dissonance by criticizing it. Jon Elster calls this pattern "adaptive preference formation."
A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-
concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision." The anxiety that comes with
the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create
additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much
money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or
her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person
feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and
other ego defense mechanisms.

The most famous case in the early study of cognitive dissonance was described by Leon Festinger
and others in the book When Prophecy Fails. The authors infiltrated a group that was expecting the
imminent end of the world on a certain date. When that prediction failed, the movement did not
disintegrate, but grew instead, as members vied to prove their orthodoxy by recruiting converts (see
further discussion below).
Another famous example of cognitive dissonance is the Ben Franklin effect. Franklin (1996: p. 80)
won over a political opponent by asking him a favor and he relates thus:
I did not ... aim at gaining his favour by paying any servile respect to him but, after some
time, took this other method. Having heard that he had in his library a certain very scarce
and curious book, I wrote a note to him, expressing my desire of perusing that book, and
requesting he would do me the favour of lending it to me for a few days. He sent it
immediately, and I return'd it in about a week with another note, expressing strongly my
sense of the favour. When we next met in the House, he spoke to me (which he had never
done before), and with great civility; and he ever after manifested a readiness to serve me on
all occasions, so that we became great friends, and our friendship continued to his death.
This is another instance of the truth of an old maxim I had learned, which says, "He that has
once done you a kindness will be more ready to do you another, than he whom you yourself
have obliged."
This perception of Franklin has led to what has become known as the Ben Franklin effect. After
lending Franklin the book, the opponent had to resolve the dissonance of his attitude towards
Franklin, whom he also had just done a favor. He justified doing the favor by telling himself that he
actually liked Franklin, and, as a result, he treated him with respect instead of rudeness from then
on.[citation needed]
Smoking is often postulated as an example of cognitive dissonance because it is widely accepted
that cigarettes can cause lung cancer, yet virtually everyone wants to live a long and healthy life. In
terms of the theory, the desire to live a long life is dissonant with the activity of doing something
that will most likely shorten one's life. The tension produced by these contradictory ideas can be
reduced by quitting smoking, denying the evidence of lung cancer, or justifying one's smoking. For
example, smokers could rationalize their behavior by concluding that only a few smokers become
ill, that it only happens to very heavy smokers, or that if smoking does not kill them, something else
will. While chemical addiction may operate in addition to cognitive dissonance for existing
smokers, new smokers may exhibit a simpler case of the latter.
This case of dissonance could also be interpreted in terms of a threat to the self-concept. The
thought, "I am increasing my risk of lung cancer" is dissonant with the self-related belief, "I am a
smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions." Because it is often easier to make excuses
than it is to change behavior, dissonance theory leads to the conclusion that humans are
rationalizing and not always rational beings.

[edit] Theory and research

Most of the research on cognitive dissonance takes the form of one of four major paradigms.
Important research generated by the theory has been concerned with the consequences of exposure
to information inconsistent with a prior belief, what happens after individuals act in ways that are
inconsistent with their prior attitudes, what happens after individuals make decisions, and the
effects of effort expenditure.

[edit] The Belief Disconfirmation Paradigm

Dissonance is aroused when people are confronted with information that is inconsistent with their
beliefs. If the dissonance is not reduced by changing one's belief, the dissonance can result in
misperception or rejection or refutation of the information, seeking support from others who share
the beliefs, and attempting to persuade others to restore consonance.
An early version of cognitive dissonance theory appeared in Leon Festinger's 1956 book, When
Prophecy Fails. This book gave an inside account of the increasing belief which sometimes follows
the failure of a cult's prophesy. The believers met at a pre-determined place and time, believing they
alone would survive the earth's destruction. The appointed time came and passed without incident.
They faced acute cognitive dissonance: had they been the victim of a hoax? Had they donated their
worldly possessions in vain? Most members chose to believe something less dissonant: the aliens
had given earth a second chance, and the group was now empowered to spread the word: earth-
spoiling must stop. The group dramatically increased their proselytism despite the failed prophecy.

[edit] The Induced-Compliance Paradigm

In Festinger and Carlsmith's classic 1959 experiment, students were asked to spend an hour on
boring and tedious tasks (e.g., turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were
designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. Once the subjects had done this, the experimenters
asked some of them to do a simple favor. They were asked to talk to another subject (actually an
actor) and persuade them that the tasks were interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid
$20 (inflation adjusted to 2010, this equates to $150) for this favor, another group was paid $1 (or
$7.50 in "2010 dollars"), and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.
When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other
"subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control
groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance. The
researchers theorized that people experienced dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I told
someone that the task was interesting", and "I actually found it boring." When paid only $1,
students were forced to internalize the attitude they were induced to express, because they had no
other justification. Those in the $20 condition, however, had an obvious external justification for
their behavior, and thus experienced less dissonance.
In subsequent experiments, an alternative method of inducing dissonance has become common. In
this research, experimenters use counter-attitudinal essay-writing, in which people are paid varying
amounts of money (e.g. $1 or $10) for writing essays expressing opinions contrary to their own.
People paid only a small amount of money have less justification for their inconsistency and tend to
experience more dissonance.
A variant of the induced-compliance paradigm is the forbidden toy paradigm. An experiment by
Aronson and Carlsmith in 1963 examined self-justification in children. In this experiment, children
were left in a room with a variety of toys, including a highly desirable toy steam-shovel (or other
toy). Upon leaving the room, the experimenter told half the children that there would be a severe
punishment if they played with that particular toy and told the other half that there would be a mild
punishment. All of the children in the study refrained from playing with the toy. Later, when the
children were told that they could freely play with whatever toy they wanted, the ones in the mild
punishment condition were less likely to play with the toy, even though the threat had been
removed. The children who were only mildly threatened had to justify to themselves why they did
not play with the toy. The degree of punishment by itself was not strong enough, so the children had
to convince themselves that the toy was not worth playing with in order to resolve their dissonance.

[edit] The Free-Choice Paradigm

In a different type of experiment conducted by Jack Brehm, 225 female students rated a series of
common appliances and were then allowed to choose one of two appliances to take home as a gift.
A second round of ratings showed that the participants increased their ratings of the item they
chose, and lowered their ratings of the rejected item. This can be explained in terms of cognitive
dissonance. When making a difficult decision, there are always aspects of the rejected choice that
one finds appealing and these features are dissonant with choosing something else. In other words,
the cognition, "I chose X" is dissonant with the cognition, "There are some things I like about Y."
More recent research has found similar results in four-year-old children and capuchin monkeys.

[edit] The Effort-Justification Paradigm

Dissonance is aroused whenever individuals voluntarily engage in an unpleasant activity to achieve
some desired goal. Dissonance can be reduced by exaggerating the desirability of the goal. Aronson
& Mills had individuals undergo a severe or mild "initiation" in order to become a member of a
group. In the severe-initiation condition, the individuals engaged in an embarrassing activity. The
group turned out to be very dull and boring. The individuals in the severe-initiation condition
evaluated the group as more interesting than the individuals in the mild-initiation condition.
All of the above paradigms continue to be used in fruitful research.
Washing one's hands has been shown to eliminate post-decisional dissonance, presumably because
the dissonance is often caused by moral disgust (with oneself) which is related to disgust from
unsanitary conditions.

[edit] Challenges and qualifications

Daryl Bem was an early critic of cognitive dissonance theory. He proposed self-perception theory as
a more parsimonious alternative explanation of the experimental results. According to Bem, people
do not think much about their attitudes, let alone whether they are in conflict. Bem interpreted
people in the Festinger and Carlsmith study or the induced-compliance paradigm as inferring their
attitudes from their behavior. Thus, when asked "Did you find the task interesting?" they decided
that they must have found it interesting because that is what they told someone. Bem suggested that
people paid $20 had a salient, external incentive for their behavior and were likely to perceive the
money as their reason for saying the task was interesting, rather than concluding that they actually
found it interesting.
In many experimental situations, Bem's theory and Festinger's dissonance theory make identical
predictions, but only dissonance theory predicts the presence of unpleasant tension or arousal. Lab
experiments have verified the presence of arousal in dissonance situations. This provides support
for cognitive dissonance theory and makes it unlikely that self-perception by itself can account for
all the laboratory findings.
In 1969, Elliot Aronson reformulated the basic theory by linking it to the self-concept. According to
this new interpretation, cognitive dissonance does not arise because people experience dissonance
between conflicting cognitions. Instead, it occurs when people see their actions as conflicting with
their normally positive view of themselves. Thus, about the original Festinger and Carlsmith study
using the induced-compliance paradigm, Aronson stated that the dissonance was between the
cognition, "I am an honest person" and the cognition, "I lied to someone about finding the task
interesting." Other psychologists have argued that maintaining cognitive consistency is a way to
protect public self-image, rather than private self-concept.
During the 1980s, Cooper and Fazio argued that dissonance was caused by aversive consequences,
rather than inconsistency. According to this interpretation, the fact that lying is wrong and hurtful,
not the inconsistency between cognitions, is what makes people feel bad. Subsequent research,
however, found that people experience dissonance even when they feel they have not done anything
wrong.For example, Aronson and his students showed that people experience dissonance even when
the consequences of their statements are beneficial--as when they convince sexually active students
to use condoms, when they, themselves are not using condoms.
Chen and colleagues have criticized the free-choice paradigm and have suggested that the "Rank,
choice, rank" method of studying dissonance is invalid. They argue that research design relies on
the assumption that, if the subject rates options differently in the second survey, then the subject's
attitudes towards the options have therefore changed. They show that there are other reasons one
might get different rankings in the second survey—perhaps the subjects were largely indifferent
between choices. However, some follow-up research has provided contradictory evidence to this
account.

[edit] Modeling in neural networks

Neural network models of cognition have provided the necessary framework to integrate the
empirical research done on cognitive dissonance and attitudes into one model of explanation of
attitude formation and change.
Various neural network models have been developed to predict how cognitive dissonance will
influence an individual's attitude and behavior. These include:

· Parallel Constraint Satisfaction ProcessesHYPERLINK \l "cite_note-read1997-24"[25]

· The Meta-Cognitive Model (MCM) of attitudes

· Adaptive connectionist model of cognitive dissonance

· Attitudes as constraint satisfaction model

[edit] Cognitive dissonance in the brain

Using fMRI, Van Veen and colleagues investigated the neural basis of cognitive dissonance in a
modified version of the classic induced compliance paradigm. While in the scanner, participants
"argued" that the uncomfortable MRI environment was nevertheless a pleasant experience. The
researchers replicated the basic induced compliance findings; participants in an experimental group
enjoyed the scanner more than participants in a control group who simply were paid to make their
argument. Importantly, responding counter-attitudinally activated the dorsal anterior cingulate
cortex and the anterior insular cortex; furthermore, the degree to which these regions were activated
predicted individual participants' degree of attitude change. Van Veen and colleagues argue that
these findings support the original dissonance theory by Festinger, and support the "conflict theory"
of anterior cingulate functioning.

Expectation Confirmation Theory Acronym ECT Alternate name(s) Expectation

disconfirmation theory (EDT) Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) Satisfaction Main
independent construct(s)/factor(s) Expectations, Perceived performance, Disconfirmation
Concise description of theory Expectations-confirmation theory posits that expectations,
coupled with perceived performance, lead to post-purchase satisfaction. This effect is
mediated through positive or negative disconfirmation between expectations and
performance. If a product outperforms expectations (positive disconfirmation) post-
purchase satisfaction will result. If a product falls short of expectations (negative
disconfirmation) the consumer is likely to be dissatisfied (Oliver, 1980; Spreng et al. 1996).
The four main constructs in the model are: expectations, performance, disconfirmation,
and satisfaction. Expectations reflect anticipated behavior (Churchill and Suprenant,
1982). They are predictive, indicating expected product attributes at some point in the
future (Spreng et al. 1996). Expectations serve as the comparison standard in ECT – what
consumers use to evaluate performance and form a disconfirmation judgment (Halstead,
1999). Disconfirmation is hypothesized to affect satisfaction, with positive disconfirmation
leading to satisfaction and negative disconfirmation leading to dissatisfaction.
A major debate within the marketing literature concerns the nature of the effect of
disconfirmation on satisfaction. The root of the problem lies in the definition of predictive
expectations as the comparison standard for perceived performance. In such case, the
confirmation of negative expectations is not likely to lead to satisfaction (Santos and Boote
2003). To overcome this problem, researchers have proposed other comparison standards
such as desires, ideals, equity, or past product and brand experience (see reviews by
Halstead, 1999; Yi 1990 and analysis by Tse and Wilton, 1988. Also see Spreng et al.
1996; Woodruff et al., 1983).
Diagram/schematic of theory

Cognitive Dissonance theory Acronym CDT Alternate name(s) Dissonance Theory,

Cognitive Consistency Theory Main dependent construct(s)/factor(s) User satisfaction,
performance, perception, behavior, usage Main independent construct(s)/factor(s)
Expectations, disconfirmation, attitude, belief Concise description of theory Cognitive
Dissonance Theory, developed by Leon Festinger (1957), is concerned with the
relationships among cognitions. According to cognitive dissonance theory, there is a
tendency for individuals to seek consistency among their cognitions (i.e., beliefs, opinions).
When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something
must change to eliminate the dissonance. In the case of a discrepancy between attitudes
and behavior, it is most likely that the attitude will change to accommodate the behavior.
Two factors affect the strength of the dissonance: the number of dissonant beliefs, and the
importance attached to each belief. There are three ways to eliminate dissonance: (1)
reduce the importance of the dissonant beliefs, (2) add more consonant beliefs that
outweigh the dissonant beliefs, or (3) change the dissonant beliefs so that they are no
longer inconsistent.
Dissonance occurs most often in situations where an individual must choose between two
incompatible beliefs or actions. The greatest dissonance is created when the two
alternatives are equally attractive. Furthermore, attitude change is more likely in the
direction of less incentive since this results in lower dissonance. In this respect,
dissonance theory is contradictory to most behavioral theories which would predict greater
attitude change with increased incentive (i.e., reinforcement).
Source: http://tip.psychology.org/festinge.html
Diagram/schematic of theory

http://www.people.vcu.edu/~rmreardon/601/601session04.htm