he theory of Cognitive
Dissonance states
that when individuals are presented with information that implies we
act in a way that contradicts our moral standards, we experience
discomfort (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1998, P. 191). This is
considered Cognitive Dissonance, A psychological term used to describe mental conflict that
occurs when beliefs or assumptions are contradicted by new information;
arouses unease or tension; relieved by one of several defensive
maneuvers: rejecting, explaining away, or avoiding new information;
persuading self that no conflict really exists; reconciling
differences; or resorting to any other defensive means of preserving
stability or order in conception of world and of self; first introduced
in 1950s; has become major point of discussion and research in
psychology (as cited in Compton’s Interactive Encyclopedia, 1996). This theory was developed by Leon Festinger (1957), is concerned
with the relationships among
cognitions. Cognition, for the purpose of
this theory, may be thought of as a piece of knowledge, thoughts,
feelings, or beliefs. Knowledge may be about an attitude, an emotion, a
behavior, or a value. For instance, the fact that you like the color
red is cognition. People have a massive amount of cognitions at the
same time, and these cognitions create irrelevant, relationships with
one another. Therefore, that the two cognitions have nothing to do with
each other. This occurs most often when we do something that
contradicts our moral beliefs. If dissonance is experienced it is almost always uncomfortable,
so the individual is motivated to reduce it. This causes the individual
to identify the magnitude of their discomfort and, it is possible to
predict what we can do to reduce dissonance. There are three basic ways
to reduce dissonance. First are changing cognitions, an example is if
two cognitions don’t relate we can change one to make it relate to the
other; or change each cognition in the direction of the other. The
second is adding cognitions, if two cognitions cause a certain degree
of dissonance, adding one or more cognitions can reduce the degree of
dissonance. The third is altering importance, attempting to justify the
behavior by adding new cognitions. These are the three basic ways of
reducing cognitive dissonance (Aronson, Wilson, and Akert, 1998, P.
192). Leon Festinger and James Carlsmith also tested his theory in
1959. They put all the
participants through a dull task. The task
consisted in placing a large number of spools on pegs on a board, turn
each spool a quarter turn, take the spool off the pegs and then put
them back on. The subject’s attitudes toward this task were negative. The participants were then asked to lie about the task to
another person. This person was actually an assistant in the study. The
lie was to try to convince the assistant that the task was actually
interesting and fun. The participants were either given one dollar or
twenty dollars for lying about the task. The experimenters found that
those who lied and received the one-dollar experienced the greatest
dissonance, and they were more motivated to seek cognitive constancy
than the participants who received twenty dollars. Those who received
the one-dollar reported to have enjoyed the task more than those who
received the twenty dollars. There was an inconsistency between the attitudes of the
participants and the behavior. The participants who received twenty
dollars just wanted the money. The larger amount of money provided
external justification for the behavior. There was no dissonance, and
the participants did not need to change their attitudes. For the subjects who received only one dollar there was less
external justification, and more dissonance. They reduced their
dissonance by changing their attitudes toward the task. The
experimenters then asked the one-dollar group to evaluate the
experiment, and rated the task more fun than the twenty-dollar group,
or the control group. This simply explains cognitive dissonance; the
participants changed their attitudes to make them consistent with
behavior. This experiment shows how easily people rationalize behavior
to make them consistent with their morals. (Price, et al, 1959 pg.
507). I have an almost perfect example of cognitive dissonance. One of
my really close friends is what you would call a social smoker. She
doesn’t consider herself a smoker; she just does it on occasion. For
example when she is drinking, or stressed. My friend doesn’t think the
typical stereotypes of a smoker correspond to her, she thinks she is
different. This one time she decided she wanted a cigarette totally out of
the blue, this went against her moral standards. She was experiencing
dissonance; she began to wonder if she really was a smoker, if this
could become a habit like other smokers. Then she began to justify her
actions by saying, “just this one time, it is not like I do this all
the time “. She justified her actions to try make herself feel better
about her decision, and got rid of her dissonance. This is just one of
many other solutions she could have chose.