Cognitive Dissonance Theory

What do a telemarketing call, a social documentary, a political campaign ad, a sermon and a
Hallmark commercial all have in common? Aside from being forms of communication, they are all
attempts at creating cognitive dissonance in humans.

Cognitive dissonance is a theory of psychology that translates into “thought conflict.” First proposed
by U.S. psychologist Leon Festinger in the 1950s, the theory seeks to explain how people reduce
psychological discomfort and achieve emotional equilibrium in the face of inconsistent beliefs or
behaviors. It rests on the premise that people desire to view themselves as rational and uniform in
both thought and action; therefore, they consciously choose how they respond to information or
behaviors that challenge their way of thinking. It has been used to understand why people give in to
con artists, make risky financial decisions and justify unhealthy habits. Though Cognitive Dissonance
Theory was controversial at first, it is now one of the most analyzed and accepted theories in both
psychology and communication.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory contains two basic hypotheses. The first one states that people who
experience psychological discomfort arising from cognitive conflict will attempt to reduce the
discomfort and achieve consonance, or inner harmony. Festinger proposed three ways humans do
this: minimize the importance of the dissonant thought, outweigh the dissonant thought with
consonant thoughts, or incorporate the dissonant thought into one’s current belief system. For
example, consider a college student who regularly drives while intoxicated. Upon hearing that
drinking and driving is dangerous, the student might (1) argue that he never drives more than a mile
from the local bar, (2) consider how much he’s saving on taxi fare by driving himself home or (3)
accept that his behavior is dangerous and stop driving drunk.

The second hypothesis says that people who experience dissonance will try to avoid it in the future
by shunning challenging situations and limiting information to that which affirms their current beliefs.
This hypothesis explains, in part, why many national news outlets frame events along a political
slant. People want to see reality in a way that supports their cognitions, and many organizations
have found ways to capitalize on this desire. Fox News, for instance, caters to the preferences of
conservative voters, whereas MSNBC is widely known for its liberal bias. The viewing audiences of
these networks tend to be highly loyal. The Internet has also proven effective in solidifying people’s
attitudes; blogs and discussion forums allow humans of every persuasion to find affirmation for their
opinions and habits. In fact, the richer a society becomes in knowledge, the more people limit their
sources of information. Scientists refer to this phenomenon as “selective exposure.”

So why do salespeople, social activists, politicians, ministers and advertisers try to create, rather
than help people avoid, cognitive dissonance? It’s because cognitive dissonance has the potential to
alter people’s behavior. If you’re a spokesperson for the laundry detergent Tide, you want people to
stop using Gain and buy your product instead. The way to do that is to confront consumers with
information that forces them to make a decision: “Use the next leading detergent and get mediocre
results, or try Tide and enjoy the brightest whites ever.”

Hallmark probably devised one of the best dissonance-inducing campaigns in modern memory. The
company’s slogan is “When you care enough to send the very best.” It implies that those who
choose to buy another brand of greeting card don’t really care about their friends and family. The
card’s recipients will sense that lack of concern, too, when they turn the card over and don’t see the
Hallmark logo on the back, as illustrated in the compy’s commercials. It’s a guilt trip strong enough to
convince almost anyone shell out $3.99 for 3 cents worth of folded card stock. Dissonance that
targets people’s insecurities is usually the most persuasive.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory, however, cannot predict how people will choose to reduce their
psychological discomfort when challenged. Attempts to sway people to a different opinion or
behavior can sometimes backfire by reinforcing an undesirable attitude. Again, consider the drunk-
driving college student, for example. While at an alcohol safety orientation, he learns that intoxicated
drivers are less likely to sustain serious injuries in traffic accidents because their bodies remain
relaxed. The student might use this information to conclude that his irresponsible behavior affords
him some small degree of safety, disregarding the fact that his odds of being involved in a car crash
are much greater than the average person’s.

Yet the rewards of convincing people to change their behavior are often well worth the effort. In a
phenomenon known as the “free-choice paradigm,” people who choose between two desirable
outcomes tend to view the rejected outcome less favorably, and the chosen outcome more
favorably, than they did before making their decision. That means the person who opts to use Tide
over Gain will initially devalue the rejected detergent to justify their choice, which is exactly what a
Tide spokesperson would want. Other paradigms further illustrate the power of cognitive dissonance:

Belief Disconfirmation – dissonance that fails to change a person’s belief causes that person to
spread her belief to others to gain support for her position.

Induced Compliance – behaviors that offer little or no reward for compliance cause people to seek
internal justification for their participation, which makes them more likely to permanently adopt said
behaviors.

Effort Justification – people who are persuaded to put more effort toward achieving a goal
exaggerate the attractiveness of the goal to justify their effort.

Since persuasion is the inherent goal of communication, it’s easy to see why cognitive dissonance
plays such a large role in the field. Communicators who want to succeed in stirring others to action
could benefit from understanding how cognitive dissonance affects people. The influential
techniques gleaned from a study of the theory aren’t just used by advertisers and salespeople, but
also by therapists, educators and environmentalists.

Introduction
Humans strive for cognitive consistency, at least according to the theory of cognitive dissonance
and a host of consistency theories that emerged in the mid-20th century. The theory of cognitive
dissonance was advanced by Leon Festinger in the 1950s. It proposes that inconsistencies
among our beliefs, attitudes, knowledge, and/or behavior can give rise to the uncomfortable
feeling of cognitive dissonance. Upon experiencing this feeling, humans are motivated to reduce
it in order to return to a more consistent state. Although Festinger theorized that cognitive
dissonance can occur, he did not suggest that cognitive dissonance always occurs when people
are faced with inconsistency. He noted that the experience of dissonance depends upon three
factors: (a) the number of consonant elements, (b) the number of dissonant elements, and (c)
the importance of each element. A more important dissonant belief will cause more cognitive
dissonance than a less important dissonant belief. One dissonant belief and many consonant
beliefs will produce less dissonance than many dissonant and many consonant beliefs. The
experience of dissonance can motivate people to engage in any of a number of dissonance
reduction strategies. The objectives of these strategies are to (a) increase the number and/or
importance of consonant elements and/or (b) to decrease the number and/or importance of
dissonant elements. This can be done by changing one’s attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors. This
also can be done by seeking agreeable information and avoiding discrepant information. Over
the years, many modifications to the theory have been proposed. Some researchers, for
example, have argued that the theory works mainly with respect to cognitive elements related to
the self. Despite proposed modifications, scholars continue to draw from the original theory.
Although the theory was first introduced and examined by psychologists, it gained traction in the
field of communication. The theory was helpful in explaining some earlier patterns observed by
those researching the influence of communication, such as the seeming preference citizens
displayed for like-minded information. In contemporary communication literature, the theory is
most frequently referenced when scholars want to offer an explanation for why an effect may
occur. Research is less frequently done specifically on the central tenets of the theory. This
article focuses predominantly on articles that have been written in the field of communication
rather than attempting to review the numerous studies that have been done on this topic in
related fields, such as psychology and political science. Although research did yield articles from
many different communication subfields, many citations were from the area of mass media as
opposed to interpersonal communication, for example. This article emphasizes recent
contributions and those that have garnered considerable attention through high rates of citation.

Core Texts
Cognitive dissonance emerged in the 1950s and inspired many studies that draw from its
central tenets. The texts in this section represent the historical texts that introduced and refined
the theory. The most-important texts in the cognitive dissonance tradition include two books by
Leon Festinger. Festinger 1957 outlines the original version of the theory. Festinger
1964 includes numerous experiments with collaborators that probe the basic tenets of the
theory. Festinger and Carlsmith 1959 is also noteworthy because of its counterintuitive findings
that are anticipated clearly by cognitive dissonance theory. Later scholarship takes Festinger’s
original theory as a starting point and provides new insights. Brehm and Cohen 1962, for
example, focuses on the role of commitment in the experience of dissonance. Abelson, et al.
1968 offers numerous assessments, both critical and laudatory, of cognitive dissonance and
clarifies the conditions under which dissonance occurs and how people respond to the
experience of dissonance. Although Lazarsfeld, et al. 1944 was written before Festinger’s
theory, it is important to include this reference because it illustrates the connection between
communication research and cognitive dissonance. All these texts would be most appropriate
for graduate students looking to gather insight into the historical ideas of the theory of cognitive
dissonance. These texts are also notable in that they showcase the creative experimental
methodology that was a central part of early research on cognitive dissonance. Although the
texts are historical, they all contain insightful reflections on cognitive dissonance that continue to
inspire more-contemporary scholarship.