Cognitive Dissonance - discomfort we experience when we hold two
or more contradictory beliefs, values, or attitudes simultaneously - this discomfort often leads to an array of rationalizations and justifications as individuals seek to align their internal state with their actions.
What is a Cognition?
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results when we hold two beliefs or values that are incompatible with each other. This can cause feelings of unease. The cognitive process includes;
- thinking, attitude, personal value, behavior, remembering, knowing, judging, and problem-solving.
- also all conscious processes such as language, imagination, perception, and planning.
Experiencing cognitive dissonance can be very distressing because we prefer for our world to make sense. Hence, we frequently engage in mental acrobatics in response to cognitive dissonance to make things make sense again.
https://www.medicinenet.com/whats_an_example_of_cognitive_dissonance/article.htm
What is Cognitive Dissonance?
Cognitive Dissonance - Discomfort a person feels when their behavior does not align with their values or beliefs.
Cognitive dissonance (arousal) occurs when a person holds two
related but contradictory cognitions or thoughts at the same time.
Two ideas can be consonant or dissonant. Consonant ideas logically agree with or compliment one another. Dissonant ideas oppose or contradict one another.
Cognitive dissonance can affect people in many ways;
- The effects may relate to the discomfort of the dissonance itself or the defense mechanisms a person adopts to deal with it.
- The internal discomfort and tension of cognitive dissonance could contribute to stress or unhappiness.
People who experience dissonance but have no way to resolve it may also feel powerless or guilty.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738
4 Strategies to Reduce the Discomfort of Cognitive Dissonance:
- Change behavior so that it is consistent with the other thought.
- Change one of the dissonant thoughts in order to restore consistency.
- Add other (consonant) thoughts that justify or reduce the importance of one thought and therefore diminish the inconsistency.
- Trivialize the inconsistency altogether, making it less important and less relevant.
A Real-Life Example
Imagine confronting a sunbather with the information that excessive sun exposure is the leading cause of skin cancer. The two thoughts – ‘sunbathing can cause cancer’ and ‘I am sunbathing’ – will cause the discomfort of cognitive dissonance. Consequently, they will be motivated to reduce it.
They will do this in one of four ways:
- They change their behavior. Upon acquiring the additional information, they might stop sunbathing.
- They change one thought. They might decide to deny the evidence showing a link between sun exposure and skin cancer.
- They add other (consonant) thoughts. They might think that sun exposure is necessary for the body to produce vitamin D, which is important for bone health, among other benefits. Therefore, they may decide that a little sunbathing is good for their health.
- They trivialize the inconsistency. They might think that facts like that have been disproven plenty of times before and disregard the information altogether.
https://positivepsychology.com/cognitive-dissonance-theory/
How to Resolve Cognitive Dissonance
To resolve cognitive dissonance, a person can aim to ensure that their actions are consistent with their values or vice versa.
A person can achieve this by:
- Changing their actions: This involves changing behavior so it matches a person’s beliefs. Where a full change is not possible, a person could make compromises. For instance, a person who cares about the environment but works for a company that pollutes might advocate for change at work if they cannot leave their job.
- Changing their thoughts: If a person often behaves in a way that contradicts their beliefs, they may question how important that belief is or find that they no longer believe it. Alternatively, they might add new beliefs that bring their actions closer to their thinking.
- Changing their perception of the action: If a person cannot or does not want to change the behavior or beliefs that cause dissonance, they may view the behavior differently instead. For example, a person who cannot afford to buy from sustainable brands might forgive themselves for this and acknowledge that they are doing the best they can.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738
Signs of Cognitive Dissonance
Because it is something a person feels internally, it is not possible to physically observe dissonance. As such, no set of external signs can reliably indicate a person is experiencing cognitive dissonance.
However, Festinger believed that all people are motivated to avoid or resolve cognitive dissonance due to the discomfort it causes. This can prompt people to adopt certain defense mechanisms when they have to confront it.
These defense mechanisms fall into three categories;
- Avoiding: This involves avoiding or ignoring the dissonance. People may avoid people or situations that remind them of it, discourage people from talking about it, or distract themselves with consuming tasks.
- Delegitimizing: This involves undermining evidence of the dissonance. A person may do this by discrediting the person, group, or situation that highlighted the dissonance. For example, they might say it is untrustworthy or biased.
- Limiting impact: This involves limiting the discomfort of cognitive dissonance by belittling its importance. A person may do this by claiming the behavior is rare or a one-off event, or by providing rational arguments to convince themselves or others that the behavior is OK.
Alternatively, people may take steps to try to resolve the inconsistency. It is possible to resolve cognitive dissonance by either changing one’s behavior or changing one’s beliefs so they are consistent with each other.
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/326738#signs
How We Deal With Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance poses a challenge: How can we resolve the uncomfortable feeling that arises when our own thoughts or actions clash with each other? Some responses may be more constructive than others.
- A man who learns that his eating habits raise his risk of illness feels the tension between his preferred behavior and the idea that he could be in danger. He might ease this feeling by telling himself that the health warning is exaggerated or, more productively, by deciding to take action to change his behavior.
- If a woman reads that her favorite politician has done something immoral, she could conclude that the charges have been invented by his enemies—or, instead, rethink her support.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/basics/cognitive-dissonance
The Discomfort of Holding Conflicting Beliefs
How we resolve our internal conflicts
Cognitive dissonance is the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. People tend to seek consistency in their attitudes and perceptions, so this conflict causes unpleasant feelings of unease or discomfort.
The inconsistency between what people believe and how they behave motivates them to engage in actions that will help minimize feelings of discomfort. People attempt to relieve this tension in different ways, such as by rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information...
Impact of Cognitive Dissonance
Because people want to avoid discomfort, cognitive dissonance can have a wide range of effects. Dissonance can play a role in how we act, think, and make decisions. We may engage in behaviors or adopt attitudes to help relieve the discomfort caused by the conflict.
Some things that a person might do to cope with these feelings include:
- Adopting beliefs or ideas to help justify or explain away the conflict between their beliefs or behaviors. This can sometimes involve blaming other people or outside factors.
- Hiding beliefs or behaviors from other people. People may feel ashamed of their conflicting beliefs and behaviors, hiding the disparity from others to minimize feelings of shame and guilt.
- Only seeking out information that confirms existing beliefs. This phenomenon, known as confirmation bias, affects the ability to think critically about a situation but helps minimize feelings of dissonance.
People like to believe that they are logical, consistent, and good at making decisions. Cognitive dissonance can interfere with the perceptions they hold about themselves and their abilities, which is why it can often feel so uncomfortable and unpleasant.
Dealing With Cognitive Dissonance
When there are conflicts between cognitions (thoughts, beliefs, and opinions), people will take steps to reduce the dissonance and feelings of discomfort. They can go about this a few different ways.
Adding More Beliefs to Outweigh Dissonant Beliefs
People who learn that greenhouse emissions result in global warming might experience feelings of dissonance if they drive a gas-guzzling vehicle. To reduce this dissonance, they may seek out new information that overrides the belief that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming.
Reducing the Importance of the Conflicting Belief
A person who cares about their health might be disturbed to learn that sitting for long periods during the day is linked to a shortened lifespan. Since they work all day in an office and spend a great deal of time sitting, it is difficult to change their behavior.
To deal with the feelings of discomfort then, they might find some way of rationalizing the conflicting cognition. For instance, they may justify their sedentary behavior by saying that their other healthy behaviors—like eating sensibly and occasionally exercising—make up for their largely sedentary lifestyle.
Changing Beliefs
Changing the conflicting cognition is one of the most effective ways of dealing with dissonance but it is also one of the most difficult—particularly in the case of deeply held values and beliefs, such as religious or political leanings.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-cognitive-dissonance-2795012
Forced Compliance Behavior
When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don’t want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn’t want to do this) and their behavior (I did it).
Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behavior can’t be changed since it was already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude toward what they have done. This prediction has been tested experimentally:
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you can imagine, participant’s attitudes toward this task were highly negative.
Example of Cognitive Dissonance
Aim
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior.
Method
In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour).
They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.
Results
When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment;
participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more
fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.
Conclusion
- Being paid only $1 - is not sufficient incentive - for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable.
- Being paid $20 - provides a reason for - turning pegs, and there is, therefore, no dissonance.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/cognitive-dissonance.html
The Psychology of Inevitability
In one experiment, (1) Jack Brehm got children to volunteer to eat a vegetable they had previously said they disliked a lot. Afterward, he led half the children to believe they could expect to eat much more of that vegetable in the future; the remaining children were not so informed. The children who were led to believe it was inevitable that they would be eating the vegetable in the future succeeded in convincing themselves that the vegetable was not so bad. In short, the cognition “I dislike that vegetable” is dissonant with the cognition “I will be eating that vegetable in the future.” To reduce the dissonance, the children came to believe the vegetable was really not as noxious as they had previously thought.
John Darley and Ellen Berscheid showed that the same phenomenon works with people as well as vegetables. In their experiment, college women volunteered to participate in (2) a series of meetings in which each student would be discussing her sexual behavior and sexual standards with a woman she didn’t know. Before beginning these discussions, each participant was given two folders. Each folder contained a personality description of a young woman who had supposedly volunteered for the same experience; the descriptions contained a mixture of pleasant and unpleasant characteristics. Half of the participants were led to believe they were going to interact with the young woman described in folder A, and the remaining participants were led to believe they were going to interact with the one described in folder B. Before meeting these women, the participants were asked to evaluate each of them on the basis of the personality descriptions they had read. Those who felt it was inevitable that they were going to share their intimate secrets with the young woman described in folder A found her much more appealing than the one described in folder B, whereas those who believed they had to interact with the young woman described in folder B found her much more appealing. The knowledge that one is inevitably going to be spending time with another person enhances the positive aspects of that person — or at least deemphasizes his or her negative aspects.
People tend to make the best of something they know is bound to happen. Just as with vegetables, inevitability makes the heart grow fonder. Deemphasizing the negative is an adaptive strategy when what’s in store is a disliked vegetable or meeting a new person, but sometimes such a strategy can prove disastrous.
(3) People who live on the West Coast, especially Californians, for example, know that one of these days a big earthquake will hit. Rational people would no doubt acknowledge the danger and work to prepare by learning all they can about it and by taking safety precautions, right? Nope. Even among well-educated people, a typical response to an inevitable catastrophe is to do nothing to prepare for it. Darrin Lehman and Shelley Taylor interviewed 120 undergraduates from UCLA and found that, although they all knew about the earthquake threat, only 5 percent had taken any safety precautions (such as locating the nearest fire extinguisher); only one-third knew that the best action to take during a quake is to crawl under a desk or other heavy piece of furniture; and not one respondent had taken preparatory measures recommended by experts.
Coping styles, however, varied as a function of the students’ living situation. Students living in seismically unsafe residence halls were more likely than those living in relatively safe residence halls to cope with the impending disaster by refusing to think about it or by minimizing the expected damage. But if you’re pretty sure that there’s going to be an earthquake, how can you justify continuing to live in an unsafe residence hall? Easy — you deny that there’s ever going to be an earthquake and refuse to think about it. Self-justifying responses to dangerous and inevitable events can be comforting in the short run. But when they keep us from taking steps to enhance our safety, such responses can, in the long run, prove deadly.
Perhaps you have noticed the curious difference between the responses of children facing a disliked vegetable or college students facing an inevitable interaction with another person, on the one hand, and the responses of UCLA students to the threat of an impending earthquake, on the other hand. In the former situations, people accept the inevitable and embrace attitudes stressing the positive aspects of the unavoidable event. The latter situation, however, involves confronting a highly probable event that is life-threatening and largely uncontrollable. It would be stretching the limits of the human imagination to redefine a major earthquake as desirable — or as anything less than a catastrophe. And we can’t prevent earthquakes; the best we can hope for is to respond adaptively to one, with no guarantee that safety measures will really save us. Thus, the nature of our response may depend on whether we believe preventive steps will genuinely increase our sense of control over the inevitable. If such steps seem futile, then the prospect of expending effort will only serve to increase our feeling of dissonance even further. Under such circumstances, we are likely to justify not taking safety measures by denying the probability of the potential disaster or vastly underestimating its magnitude.
Can you see where this is going? Scientists have reached an international consensus that global warming poses a major threat to the planet, yet many Americans remain unconcerned by it or think climate change is a “hoax.” Dissonance theory suggests that if scientists want to motivate people into taking immediate action on global warming, it will be vital to also convince them that doing something about it is within their control. Simply stoking up their fears is likely to make them either deny its existence or actively disregard the scientific evidence.
The Social Animal - Twelfth Edition by Elliot Aronson
https://www.amazon.com/Social-Animal-Elliot-Aronson/dp/1464144184/
Cognitive Dissonance at Wikipedia
In the field of psychology, cognitive dissonance is the perception of - contradictory information - and the mental toll of it. Relevant items of information include a person's actions, feelings, ideas, beliefs, and values, and things in the environment. Cognitive dissonance is typically experienced as psychological stress when they participate in an action that goes against one or more of them. According to this theory, when two actions or ideas are not psychologically consistent with each other, people do all in their power to change them until they become consistent.
The discomfort is triggered by the person's belief clashing with new information perceived, wherein they try to find a way to resolve the contradiction to reduce their discomfort.
Leon Festinger (1956) proposed that human beings strive for internal psychological consistency to function mentally in the real world. A person who experiences internal inconsistency tends to become psychologically uncomfortable and is motivated to reduce the cognitive dissonance. They tend to make changes to justify the stressful behavior, either by adding new parts to the cognition causing the psychological dissonance (rationalization) or by avoiding circumstances and contradictory information likely to increase the magnitude of the cognitive dissonance (confirmation bias).
Coping with the nuances of contradictory ideas or experiences is mentally stressful. It requires energy and effort to sit with those seemingly opposite things that all seem true. Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.
Relations Among Cognitions
To function in the reality of society, human beings continually adjust the correspondence of their mental attitudes and personal actions; such continual adjustments, between cognition and action, result in one of three relationships with reality:
- Consonant Relationship: Two cognitions or actions consistent with each other (e.g. not wanting to become drunk when out to dinner, and ordering water rather than wine)
- Irrelevant Relationship: Two cognitions or actions unrelated to each other (e.g. not wanting to become drunk when out and wearing a shirt)
- Dissonant Relationship: Two cognitions or actions inconsistent with each other (e.g. not wanting to become drunk when out, but then drinking more wine)
Magnitude of Dissonance
The term "magnitude of dissonance" refers to the level of discomfort caused to the person. This can be caused by the relationship between two different internal beliefs, or an action that is incompatible with the beliefs of the person. Two factors determine the degree of psychological dissonance caused by two conflicting cognitions or by two conflicting actions:
- The importance of cognitions: the greater the personal value of the elements, the greater the magnitude of the dissonance in the relation. When the value of the importance of the two dissonant items is high, it is difficult to determine which action or thought is correct. Both have had a place of truth, at least subjectively, in the mind of the person. Therefore, when the ideals or actions now clash, it is difficult for the individual to decide which takes priority.
- Ratio of cognitions: the proportion of dissonant-to-consonant elements. There is a level of discomfort within each person that is acceptable for living. When a person is within that (comfort level), the dissonant factors do not interfere with functioning. However, when dissonant factors are abundant and not enough in line with each other, one goes through a process to regulate and bring the ratio back to an acceptable level. Once a subject chooses to keep one of the dissonant factors, they quickly forget the other to restore peace of mind.
There is always some degree of dissonance within a person as they go about making decisions, due to the changing quantity and quality of knowledge and wisdom that they gain. The magnitude itself is a subjective measurement since the reports are self relayed, and there is no objective way as yet to get a clear measurement of the level of discomfort.
Reduction
Cognitive dissonance theory proposes that people seek psychological consistency between their expectations of life and the existential reality of the world. To function by that expectation of existential consistency, people continually reduce their cognitive dissonance in order to align their cognitions (perceptions of the world) with their actions.
The creation and establishment of psychological consistency allows the person affected with cognitive dissonance to lessen mental stress by actions that reduce the magnitude of the dissonance, realized either by changing with or by justifying against or by being indifferent to the existential contradiction that is inducing the mental stress. In practice, people reduce the magnitude of their cognitive dissonance in four ways:
Change the behavior or the cognition ("I'll eat no more of this doughnut.")
- Justify the behavior or the cognition, by changing the conflicting cognition ("I'm allowed to cheat my diet every once in a while.")
- Justify the behavior or the cognition by adding new behaviors or cognitions ("I'll spend thirty extra minutes at the gymnasium to work off the doughnut.")
- Ignore or deny information that conflicts with existing beliefs ("This doughnut is not a high-sugar food.")
That consistent psychology is required for functioning in the real world also was indicated in the results of The Psychology of Prejudice (2006), wherein people facilitate their functioning in the real world by employing human categories (i.e. sex and gender, age and race, etc.) with which they manage their social interactions with other people.
Based on a brief overview of models and theories related to cognitive consistency from many different scientific fields ...it has even been proposed that "all behaviour involving cognitive processing is caused by the activation of inconsistent cognitions and functions to increase perceived consistency"; that is, all behaviour functions to reduce cognitive inconsistency at some level of information processing. Indeed, the involvement of cognitive inconsistency has long been suggested for behaviors related to for instance curiosity, and aggression and fear, while it has also been suggested that the inability to satisfactorily reduce cognitive inconsistency may - dependent on the type and size of the inconsistency - result in stress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance and Consonance:
- The Basics for Former Mormons - by Luna Flesher
Cognitive dissonance/consonance theory is basic to understanding human thought and behavior. It describes how our beliefs interact with each other, our resistance to new beliefs, and what dynamics are involved when we do change our beliefs. We experience cognitive dissonance and consonance on a day to day bases as we process all the new information in our mental "inbox". It not only applies to our spiritual and political beliefs, but also what products we choose to purchase, how we raise our children, where we arrange our furniture, and all other decisions we make both large and small.
Cognitive dissonance is not, in and of itself, a thought reform method. But because it is so central to how we think and make decisions, it becomes key to understanding manipulative techniques.
A cognition is a belief, concept, behavior, memory, attitude, or emotion. Our minds are filled with millions of cognitions. Most of them have no relationship to each other and cannot be correlated -- for instance, last years Super Bowl scores have nothing to do with worries over the rising price of gas. But many cognitions are connected, and of these, some will reaffirm each other (consonance) or conflict with one another (dissonance).
For example, knowing a statistic about the number of fatal car accidents would be consonant with a belief in using seat belts. Hearing a story about a child who died because he was wearing a seat belt would be dissonant, as would having a claustrophobic fear of being constrained.
According to theory, states of dissonance will leave us uncomfortable. Like thirst or hunger we will have an urge to bring a return to consonance. There are many ways to resolve dissonance: 1) Change your cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, behavior), 2) Add new cognitions to explain or balance the conflict, 3) Alter the importance of the cognitions.
1. Changing Cognitions
a. One way to decrease consonance is to change existing beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, or even memories. In the face of new facts, we may change our minds. Or in the face of social pressure, we may begin to favor something we had distaste for previously.
b. Or we can reject the new information. If it confronts our fast-held beliefs, we may be prone to believe the bearer of information (activist, author, speaker) is a liar, is a member of an opposing group, has ulterior motives, or is somehow against our principles. Sometimes it is easier to reject facts out of hand than it is to change our minds.
2. Add New Cognitions
a. We can add new concepts, ideas, or behaviors to explain or justify conflicts, to transform nonsense into sense. If we are a biblical inerrantist, we may be inclined to believe the parting of the Red Sea really happened. If this dissonates with the improbability that such a thing could happen in a scientific, rational world, then we may add the idea that the sea was parted by a strong wind, or that the Israelites actually crossed the shallow Reed Sea.
b. Behaviors are also cognitions, so in the face of dissonance we may exaggerate, increase, or add new behaviors which support our beliefs. A verbally abusive man may find his actions in conflict with his belief that he is a good person, so he may make a large donation to charity to relieve his guilt.
c. Alternately, we may find support in a group of friends who can help bolster our weakened beliefs. If we can surround ourselves with people of similar cognitions, this will create a loud consonance to drown out the dissonance.
3. Alter Importance
a. Lower the importance. When we can't get what we want, it is often easier to say, "Fine, whatever, I didn't really want it anyway." By this change in attitude, we make the dissonant cognition less important than it once was. If we discover our favored candidate for President voted against our favorite congressional bill, we may dismiss the importance of that bill, even to the point of forgetting about it, to continue supporting the candidate -- dissonance-free.
b. Increase the importance of consonant cognitions. This will drown out the discomfort of dissonance. We may still be disappointed about that bill, but we can instead focus on our candidate's endearing charm and contributions to charity.
Dissonance resolution will usually take the path of least resistance. Changing, adding, or altering importance of cognitions may cause pain, loss, shame, disorientation, or fear. Which of these we choose will usually be that which causes the least discomfort.
Habits and the weight of other consonant cognitions also create resistance to change. If a habitual behavior goes against a belief, it may be hard to alter... unless the belief is deeply held and supported by a large number of other cognitions. One dissonance may threaten to topple thousands of dependent consonants, like a keystone or lynch pin. We're not as likely to change a belief which would cause so much mental trouble, especially when it's easier to reject the threat or add a few rationalizing beliefs.
Commonly people avoid dissonance by avoiding sources of new information all together.
Dissonance is not always resolved. Minor dissonances of low importance may continue for years. Or the addition of cognitions to justify conflicts can offer powerful damage control. Often people hold hundreds of conflicting views without ever realizing it. Orwell called this "double-think", the ability to self-contradict without any apparent discomfort -- "Freedom is Slavery", "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength". It would be important to note that Orwell's fictional characters in 1984 had been brainwashed into performing these feats of mental gymnastics.
Some cognitions can reverse the expected effects of new information. A cult may plant beliefs to counter potential opposition. For instance, if a person is being persecuted, they would normally be intimidated or humiliated into changing beliefs. But if members of a group hold a strong belief that Satan attacks truth, and seeks to lead believers astray through the ridicule of non-believers, persecution becomes a confirmation that will actually bolster faith. This technique of dissonance reversal is so powerful, people will even seek contradictory cognitions -- in this example, people will perceive persecution where there is none.
Experiments
There are [two famous experiments] that show cognitive dissonance in action.
[In the first], students were asked individually to perform a futile repetitious task for several hours. Upon finishing, each student was asked to explain their task to the next "student" (who was actually one of the researchers). They were instructed to introduce the task in positive terms; that it was fun, interesting, and exciting. One group of students was paid $1 to extol the virtues of the job, while another group was paid $20. A third group was not asked to talk to anyone for any price.
Afterward, all the students were asked to evaluate the experiment on how enjoyable it was. Those who were paid $1 to "market" the task said they enjoyed it much more than those who had been paid $20 or who had not been asked to talk to anyone.
There are three cognitions interacting in this experiment: 1) The enjoyability of the task, 2) The behavior of talking to another student about the task, 3) Justification through money.
Nearly everyone hated the task while performing it. Those who were not asked to lie to other students reflected this feeling on the follow-up survey. Similarly, the $20 group also stated they did not enjoy themselves. They could justify the act of lying -- they were getting paid. Selling out is good enough justification to tell a white lie for the sake of research, right?
However, those who were paid $1 were in a bit of a bind. They had just lied for practically nothing. For them, the path of least resistance involved a slight modification to their cognition -- to convince themselves they did indeed enjoy the task.
[The second] famous experiment/observation involved a particular form of cognitive dissonance: the belief-disconfirmation paradigm. In order to meet the criteria of this type of dissonance:
- The cognition(s) must be deeply held and related to action - the believer must act on his beliefs.
- There must be commitment on the part of the believer and actions which are irreversible. The more committed the action, the deeper the belief.
- The beliefs must be specific, detailed, and related to reality, i.e. falsifiable/disprovable.
- Irrefutable counter-evidence must be introduced and understood by the believer.
-
The believer must have social ties to other believers.
He cannot be isolated.
(When Prophecy Fails, p 4)
In the observed case, a UFO cult had predicted the end of the world on a specific date. Members of the group had made public statements, quit jobs or gotten fired, alienated relatives, moved, had no future plans for after the disaster date, and a few minor activities (like removing metal from their clothing). These believers had acted on their beliefs in irreversible ways. Their beliefs were specific and related to a real event. The date would come around, and the world would then know if they were right -- or wrong.
Prior to the discomfirmation of their beliefs, this group had been primarily secretive, only allowing a few select members to join, or even to ask questions.
As the day of disaster grew nearer, several smaller predictions failed to materialize. These were rationalized away, but with each discomfirmation, the group became more public. When the UFOs failed to appear and the predicted flood failed to occur, the group determined (through prophecy) that the world had been saved because of their goodness and effort. Suddenly they became very public, inviting in reporters and visitors alike. They began to argue in earnest to convince others of their belief system, something they had not previously done. If they could convince others that they were correct, then they could feel that they were indeed right all along.
This belief-discomfirmation paradigm describes a type of cognitive dissonance that results in proselytizing. If others believe too, then you're not really crazy after all. It is not unlike telling a joke where no one laughs, and feeling the urge to say, "Get it?!"
Most beliefs are not so concrete, so it is usually easiest to add a rationalizing cognition (as this group also did), to alter the importance of the belief, refute the new information, or change beliefs.
Fictional Mormon Case Studies
Lets take a look at a few stories in the Mormon context. These specific events did not occur, but these types of situations frequently happen to Mormons everywhere.
Sister Warren
Sister Warren is a perfect TBM wife to a Bishop and mother to six children. She was released as Relief Society President the previous year. While at the country fair, she sees an anti-Mormon booth. Thought she walks the other way, she can't miss a large sign which reads, "Joseph Smith married a 14 year old girl!" She believes Joseph Smith is a beloved and righteous prophet, but she also believes it is sinful and vile for a grown man to marry a teenager -- she has three teenage daughters of her own. This causes quite a lot of dissonance. Sister Warren immediately dismisses the anti-Mormons as hateful liars who are merely out to destroy the church. She changes cognitions -- in this case, she labels the new information as a lie.
Brother Porter
Brother Porter is an Elder's Quorum President. A few weeks ago, his wife came to him in distress about something she had read on the internet. At first he resisted, but he has now looked over the websites and learned a few things about Church history that trouble him. He had never heard these things taught in Church, and in fact on several points, the Church has published the opposite. Brother Porter can come to no other conclusion than that the Church has deceived him. After much troubling thought and heart-searching, he and his wife put in their resignations one year later. The Porters have changed cognitions.
Brother Pell
Brother Pell is a science teacher at a local college. He had been raised to believe in the literal Genesis account of creation. While at college, his Bishop -- also his Biology teacher -- had laid out all the evidence of evolution. Brother Pell quickly became convinced that life on earth had evolved. For a time, this dissonance threatened to crumble all his beliefs in Mormonism, on the assumption that evolutionism contradicted Genesis. But he quickly added a new set of beliefs -- that God could well have used evolution to create life on earth. "Days" could mean "time periods", and abbreviated language could explain the simplified description. Brother Pell added cognitions to resolve his dissonance.
Sister Brooks
Sister Brooks has been semi-active for several years, since her husband quit going to Church. Sometimes she takes her children to Church. She still reads the scriptures and still believes in the Gospel. One day a friend, Sister DuPont, calls her in tears. Sister DuPont has had frequent marital troubles, but for the most part has remained silent regarding details. Today she is forthcoming. Her husband has been beating her and her children for the last six months. The night before, Brother DuPont, a member of the bishopric, had given her youngest son a black eye. Sister DuPont had gone to the Bishop for help, but the Bishop believed Brother DuPont was a righteous man incapable of such actions, and that Sister DuPont was making up lies. When Sister DuPont complained that she had been repeatedly raped, the Bishop laughed and said no married woman could be raped by her husband. She needed to give her husband more Christlike love and understanding, and support him in his difficult calling.
At the other end of the line, Sister Brooks becomes confused, and at the end of the call quips, "I don't think your husband would do such a thing!" and hangs up. Sister Brooks increases her activity, attending every meeting faithfully with her children. She tries to avoid Sister DuPont whenever possible.
Sister Brooks has added cognitions of behavior and social support by attending more meetings. The importance of her beliefs outweigh her friendship with Sister DuPont, so she has cut off association to eliminate the dissonant memory of the phone call.
Elder Roberts
Elder Roberts is on a mission. He went to gain a testimony after several years of teenage uncertainty. Through converting others to the Gospel, he has finally gained a firm knowledge the Church is true.
While proselytizing one day, an older man invites the missionaries in. The man has much to say on the topic of Mormonism. His methods are subtle, but he slowly introduces dissonance by talking about conflicts between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As the contradictory scriptures mount, Elder Roberts begins to be daunted. When they leave, and his companion shrugs it off. "The Bible wasn't translated correctly anyway, right? Those things don't matter." Elder Roberts begins to relax. "Besides," says his companion, "The Lord will reveal everything in due time." Elder Roberts smiles. With the help of his companion, he has reduced the importance of scriptural conflicts.
Conclusion - Cognitive Awarenes
With an awareness of how cognition functions, one can choose beneficial beliefs that make use of the above information. For instance, I have chosen to make truth and reality an important foundation of my beliefs. I measure all other cognitions as to whether they match with what is real. I value making my words and actions reflect reality.
The effect of this belief is that I am less resistant to change and more open to learning. I am also more skeptical, less apt to accept new ideas without first researching the facts and opposing viewpoints. I want to know what really is truth, not what someone claims is truth.
If we can become aware of our cognitions and how they affect our behavior, we gain control of our lives. We can choose cognitions that benefit us, rather than automatically reacting to how we've been programmed.
Copyright 2005, Luna Flesher
http://www.rationalrevelation.com/library/cogdis.html
10 Cognitive Dissonance Examples
https://helpfulprofessor.com/cognitive-dissonance-examples/
https://www.buzzfeed.com/larryfitzmaurice/reddit-shares-cognitive-dissonance-examples
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/cognitive-dissonance
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-hvcc-psychology-1/chapter/cognitive-dissonance/
https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-cognitive-dissonance-and-positive-fixes.html
