Download Explanation and Analysis of Leon Festinger`s Cognitive Dissonance

1
Explanation and Analysis of Leon Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Jennifer Rogers
University at Albany
2
While Leon Festinger was attending graduate school at the University of Iowa, he
studied under German-American psychologist, Kurt Lewin. Kurt Lewin is commonly
recognized as the founder of modern Social Psychology. Lewin’s ideas offered a sense of
“creativity, newness, and importance, as well as a closeness between theory and data”
(“Leon Festinger,” n.d.) that complemented Festinger’s love for science. Three years
after Festinger received his Doctorate in psychology, his interest shifted to the field of
Social Psychology. Festinger first introduced Cognitive Dissonance Theory in 1956 in the
coauthored book When Prophecy Fails (“Leon Festinger,” n.d.). One year after Festinger
published his book on failed prophecy and cognitive dissonance, he presented the full
concept of his theory in A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (1957). According to Griffin
(2012), Festinger’s (1957) theory “has energized scientifically oriented communication
scholars for more than 50 years” (p. 211). Today, Cognitive Dissonance Theory is widely
accepted in the field of Communications, as well as the fields of Psychology,
Management, and Marketing.
Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance theory is exceedingly significant in the
field of Social Psychology. Since it’s publication, the theory of cognitive dissonance has
generated an extensive amount of research and considerable theoretical discussion
(Wicklund, 1976). Festinger (1957) defines cognitive dissonance as the distressing
mental state that people feel when they “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with
what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold”
(Griffin, 2012). The term itself can be broken down into two elements. The word
cognitive refers to the mental processes of an individual, such as thoughts, beliefs, ideas,
or attitudes. Festinger (1959) explains the word dissonance simply means “out of tune”
3
(p. 203). According to Festinger (1957) the need to bypass dissonance is just as
fundamental as the need for sleep or the need to satisfy hunger (Griffin, 2012).
Festinger (1957) suggests that an individual will experience cognitive dissonance
when they hold at least two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent. When these
circumstances exist, the inconsistency creates stress and discomfort for the individual.
The uneasy discomfort will then motivate the individual to change something in order to
reduce it. The individual could either change their behavior or change their attitudes and
beliefs towards that behavior. It is much harder for an individual to change their
behavior; therefore an individual will commonly change their attitude. The degree of
dissonance experienced results from how important the issue is to the individual and how
great the discrepancy between their behavior and their belief (Griffin, 2012).
Festinger (1957) hypothesized “three mental mechanisms people use to ensure
that their actions and attitudes are in harmony” (Griffin, p. 202). The three mental
mechanisms are referred to as selective exposure, postdecision dissonance, and minimal
justification. Festinger (1957) defines selective exposure as the tendency people have to
avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance because it’s incompatible with
their current beliefs (Griffin, 2012). Postdecision dissonance is defined by Festinger
(1957) as strong doubts experienced after making an important, close call decision that is
difficult to reverse (Griffin, 2012). Lastly, Festinger (1957) defines minimal justification
hypothesis as a claim that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer
just enough incentive to elicit counter attitudinal behavior (Griffin, 2012). To test his
minimal justification hypothesis, Festinger (1957) conducted an experiment, which is
now famously recognized as the $1/$20 experiment. The $1/$20 procedure was designed
4
to be “both monotonous and tiring” (Griffin, 2012). Men were instructed to sort spools
and at the end of the task, the men were supposed to convince a woman in the waiting
room that the task was fun. Some men were paid one dollar to lie and others were paid
twenty dollars. “The research found that the men who lied for twenty dollars later
confessed that they thought the task of sorting spools was dull” (Griffin, p. 206). The men
that lied for one dollar though maintained that they thought the task was fun. Festinger
(1957) analyzed the results to find that the twenty dollars cash was a justification;
therefore the men who received twenty dollars felt little or no tension between their
attitudes and behavior (Griffin, 2012). The men who received one dollar had to create
another justification for their actions to eliminate their dissonance, so they changed their
attitudes towards the task. For example, a man who received only one dollar stated, “I’m
a Stanford man. Am I the kind of guy who would lie for a dollar? No way. Actually, what
I told the girl was true. The experiment was a lot of fun” (Griffin, p. 206). This
experiment supports Festinger’s (1957) Cognitive Dissonance Theory stating, “the
tension of dissonance motivates us to change either our behavior or our belief in an effort
to avoid that distressing feeling” (Griffin, p. 200).
Reports of rumors in India led Festinger (1959) to develop Cognitive Dissonance
Theory. After India’s 1934 earthquake, rumors spread that areas outside the danger zone
would be hit with additional and greater proportions (Festinger, 1959). These rumors had
no scientific foundation; therefore Festinger wondered why people would spread such
anxiety-increasing ideas (Festinger, 1959). Festinger (1959) declared that the rumors
“were not anxiety-increasing, but anxiety-justifying” (p. 204). Since the people living
outside of the danger zone had a fear that the earthquake would hit them, they felt
5
dissonance due to the lack of any scientific evidence in support of their fear. They created
rumors to eliminate the dissonance they felt. Festinger (1959) concluded “The cognition
of fear was out of tune with lack of any scientific basis for their fear; therefore, they made
their world fit with what they were feeling and how they were behaving (p. 204)” This
occurrence in India led Festinger (1959) to the development of cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger, 1959).
Eric Anderson of University of Bath, England, conducted a research study titled
“At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy: Cheating and monogamsim
among undergraduate heterosexual men.” Anderson applies cognitive dissonance theory
in his research to explain his participants’ desires for simultaneously wanting monogamy
and nonmonogamy. In his study, Anderson (2010), refers to this dissonance as the
“monogamy gap” (p. 851). Anderson recruited forty men between eighteen and twentyone years of age, to qualify for an interview. The men also had to be in a heterosexual
relationship for three months or longer. Anderson then told the participants that he was
not looking to judge cheating behaviors, but instead was interested in why men cheat.
Anderson (2010) designed the interviews to “foster a non-judgmental exchange between
the researcher and the participant” about different heterosexual relationships they had (p.
857). The interviews asked questions such as ‘‘in the whole six months that you dated
her, how many times did you cheat on her by kissing another woman?’’
Anderson’s results found that unanimously, the men had a desire to be thought of
as monogamous. They also support monogamy as the “ideal personal and cultural
relationship model” (Anderson, p. 858). Although the participants collectively identify as
monogamous, their behaviors in each relationship vary widely in terms of being faithful.
6
Anderson (2010) indicates that “it seems that, to these men, it is less important as to what
they do sexually, and more important that they identify as monogamous” (p. 858). To
conclude, participants that fail to act monogamously towards their significant other, still
pretended to their partners and to others that they are monogamous in their relationship.
Anderson (2010) explains, “participants also equate monogamy as the ‘‘natural’’
outcome of supreme love – the ideal form of coupling – even though they simultaneously
believe that their desire for recreational sex is biologically driven” (p. 858). One
participant, Tom, states that ‘‘Yeah, I want sex with other women. Of course. I’m male.
But if I love my girlfriend enough I shouldn’t want it” (Anderson, p.858). Tom is clearly
crossed with two contrasting beliefs: “(i) that the desire for monogamy results from true
love and; (ii) that men naturally desire recreational sex even when in love.” (Anderson, p.
858). This creates cognitive dissonance for Tom; therefore, he will either change his
behavior or change his attitude towards his behavior. This explains why the men who did
not act monogamously still presented themselves as monogamous. They changed their
attitudes towards being unfaithful and insisted that they were still monogamous because
they truly believe that they are.
Another study that applies cognitive dissonance theory took place at the
University of South Alabama. The study, “It did not mean anything (about me):
Cognitive dissonance theory and the cognitive and affective consequences or romantic
infidelity,” was conducted by Joshua Foster and Tiffany Misra. This experiment was also
developed to test the dissonance that people felt after committing romantic infidelity,
which then provoked them to employ tactics to reduce the dissonance. Foster and Misra
(2013) conducted four experiments to test the view that “infidelity is a dissonance
7
arousing behavior and that perpetrators of infidelity respond in ways that reduce
cognitive dissonance” (p. 835). In each experiment, the participants were given false
feedback that suggested whether or not they had acted faithfully during a previous
relationship.
The results of the experiment found that the participants who received feedback
indicating they were unfaithful felt higher levels of psychological discomfort. This
discomfort is known as Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance. Individuals that view
themselves as loyal, but commit infidelity, are likely to experience cognitive dissonance
due to their inconsistent beliefs. The results also found that the participants who claimed
that the importance of their infidelities were insignificant, were then able to reduce
psychological discomfort. According to Foster and Misra (2013), “these results are
generally consistent with the view that infidelity is a dissonance arousing behavior and
that perpetrators of infidelity respond in ways that reduce cognitive dissonance” (p. 835).
According to Griffin (2012), When Festinger (1957) died in 1989, his obituary
stated, “Like Dostoyevski and like Picasso, Festinger set in motion a style of research and
theory in the social sciences that is now the common property of all creative workers in
the field … Leon is to social psychology what Freud is to clinical psychology and Piaget
to developmental psychology” (p. 210). Although Festinger’s (1957) cognitive
dissonance theory has achieved name recognition by popular culture, it’s still criticized
by scholars around the globe. Griffin (2012) professes that Festinger (1957) “never
specified a reliable way to detect the degree of dissonance a person experiences” (p. 211).
By this, Griffin affirms that such an instrument to measure the degree of dissonance is
essential. University of Wisconsin psychologist, Patricia Devine, refers to such an
8
instrument as a dissonance thermometer (Griffin, 2012). Griffin (2012) argues, “Until
some kind of dissonance thermometer is a standard part of dissonance research, we will
never know if the distressing mental state is for real” (p. 211).
Another challenge to Festinger’s (1957) theory occurred when theorists began to
question whether dissonance results were due to motivation (Harmon-Jones, 2012).
Theorists hypothesized that dissonance effects were due to “nonmotivational, cognitive
processes or impression management concerns” (Griffin, p. 544). Although this was a
common hypothesis between theorists, following research declared that dissonance is in a
fact a motivated process. Beginning in the late 1960s, researchers began to introduce
motivational explanations for dissonance effects that differed from Festinger’s (1957)
originally proposed theory (Harmon-Jones, 2012). There are three recognized revisions of
Festinger’s (1957) dissonance theory. The three revisions include Aronson’s selfconsistency theory, Steele’s self-affirmation theory, and Cooper and Fazio’s new look at
dissonance (Harmon-Jones, 2012). Each of these developers has presented evidence to
support their theories as well.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory by Leon Festinger (1957) is a widely accepted
theory in the field of communications and beyond. Festinger’s (1957) theory explores the
discomfort that people feel when they do something that is inconsistent with their
attitude. The principal assumption of Cognitive Dissonance Theory is that discomfort will
motivate the individual to change something in order to reduce it. The individual could
either change their behavior or change their attitudes and beliefs towards that behavior.
This holds true to Festinger’s (1957) study of rumors in India, which later led to the
development of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. According to researchers, Eric Anderson,
9
Joshua Foster, and Tiffany Misra, studies prove that people will change their attitude
towards their behaviors to reduce the dissonance they feel. Although Cognitive
Dissonance Theory (1957) was developed over fifty years ago, it is still relevant and
remarkably influential to scholars today.
10
References
Anderson, E. (2010). “At least with cheating there is an attempt at monogamy”: Cheating
and monogamism among undergraduate heterosexual men. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 27(7), 851-872.
Festinger, L., Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Thoughts Out of Tune: Cognitive consequences of
forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.
Foster, J., Misra, T. (2013). It did not mean anything (about me): Cognitive dissonance
theory and the cognitive and affective consequences of romantic infidelity.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 30(7), 835-857.
Griffin, E. (2012). A First Look at Communication Theory. New York, NY: McGraw
Hill.
Harmon-Jones E. (2012) Cognitive Dissonance Theory. In: V.S. Ramachandran (ed.) The
Encyclopedia of Human Behavior, 1(2), 543-549. College Station, TX: Academic
Press. PROB use for critique
Wicklund, R., Brehm, J. (1976). Perspectives on Cognitive Dissonance. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
"Festinger, Leon." Complete Dictionary of Scientific Biography. 2008. Retrieved
April 10, 2015 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G22830905670.html