Cognitive dissonance theory

\( \newcommand\) • • • • • Theories of Persuasion Understanding how people are persuaded is very important to the discussion of public speaking. Thankfully, a number of researchers have created theories that help explain why people are persuaded. While there are numerous theories that help to explain persuasion, we are only going to examine onehere: cognitive dissonance theory. bruthanick – In 1957, Leon Festinger proposed another theory for understanding how persuasion functions: cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957). Cognitive dissonance is an aversive motivational state that occurs when an individual entertains two or more contradictory attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors simultaneously. For example, maybe you know you should be working on your speech, but you really want to go to a movie with a friend. In this case, practicing your speech and going to the movie are two cognitions that are inconsistent with one another. The goal of persuasion is to induce enough dissonance in listeners that they will change their attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. Frymier and Nadler noted that for cognitive dissonance to work effectively there are three necessary conditions: aversive consequences, freedom of choice, and insufficient external justification (Frymier & Nadler, 2007). First, for cognitive dissonance to work, there needs to be a strong enough aversive consequence, or punishment, for not changing one’s attitudes, values, beliefs, or behaviors. For example...

• Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5–27). Chicago: Rand McNally. • Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66, 584–588. • Aronson, J., Blanton, H., & Cooper, J. (1995). From dissonance to disidentification: Selectivity in the self-affirmation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 986–996. • Beauvois, J. L., & Joule, R. V. (1996). A radical dissonance theory. London: Taylor and Francis. • Beauvois, J. L., & Joule, R. V. (1999). A radical view on dissonance theory. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 43–70). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. • Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, 183–200. • Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 384–389. • Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17, 229–266. • Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, ...

This chapter focuses on theory of cognitive dissonance. The proliferation of research testing and extending dissonance theory results for the most part from the generality and simplicity of the theory. Although it has been applied primarily in social psychological settings, it is not limited to social psychological phenomena such as interpersonal relations or feelings toward a communicator and his communication. Rather, its domain is in the widest of places—the skull of an individual organism. The core notion of the theory is extremely simple: Dissonance is a negative drive state that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions that are psychologically inconsistent. The very simplicity of the core of the theory is its greatest strength and most serious weakness. Many of the hypotheses that are obvious derivations from the theory are unique to that theory—that is, they could not be derived from any other theory. One of the intriguing aspects of dissonance theory is that it frequently leads to predictions that stand in apparent contradiction to those made by other theoretical approaches, most notably, to a general reward-incentive theory. The implication of the chapter is that dissonant situations are ubiquitous and that man expends a great deal of time and energy attempting to reduce dissonance. It should be obvious that man does many other things as well. • Previous chapter in volume • Next chapter in volume

What mental process occurs when a person does something she knows is unhealthy? When an honest person tells a "white lie," what happens to his or her sense of integrity? If we must choose between two equally attractive options, why does our value judgment of the options change after the choice has been made? In 1954 Leon Festinger first posited a theory of cognitive dissonance to describe the psychological phenomenon that occurs in these situations. In the years since, cognitive dissonance has become a central pillar of psychological theory, as was documented in the first edition of this book. In this new and fully-updated edition, editor Eddie Harmon-Jones brings the study of cognitive dissonance into the 21st century. Contributors survey recent discoveries about the role dissonance plays in a variety of information processes, as well as about connections between dissonance processes and other motivational processes. Other authors introduce mathematical and action-based models that summarize how dissonance works. Evidence describing the neural correlates of dissonance is also provided, helping to demonstrate the biological foundations of the theory. Contributors Foreword to the First Edition Foreword to the Second Edition Preface • An Introduction to Cognitive Dissonance Theory and an Overview of Current Perspectives on the Theory Eddie Harmon-Jones and Judson Mills I. Perspectives Employing the Original Version of the Theory • Improving the 1957 Version of Dissonance The...