Cognitive dissonance and attitude change

Hogg, M. A., & Vaughan, G. M. (2022). Social psychology. (Ninth Edition.). Pearson. Chapter 6 (Persuasion and Attitude Change - section on Cognitive Dissonance and Attitude Change.) (pp. 224-234)

Cognitive dissonance: summary

• cognitive dissonance is a psychological tension caused by conflicting cognitions (thoughts, attitudes, or behaviours)

• example: valuing fidelity but engaging in an affair

How people resolve dissonance

• change cognition: alter the belief or behaviour

  • e.g., “What’s wrong with a little fun?”

• justify conflict: seek additional evidence or rationalise

  • e.g., “my partner doesn’t understand me”

• derogate the source: devalue the conflicting belief

  • e.g., “fidelity is just religious indoctrination”

• The greater dissonance, the stronger the effort to resolve it.

Selective Exposure Hypothesis:

• People avoid dissonant information unless:

  • they have strong attitudes and can counter or integrate contrary ideas

  • their attitudes are weak, encouraging openness and new information and change.

Applications and Paradigms:

Effort Justification:

• people value outcomes more if they have invested effort.

  • Example: Aronson & Mills (1959) found participants in severe initiation rated a dull group discussion as more interesting than those in mild or no initiation conditions.

• Effective in inducing lasting behavioural changes, e.g., overcoming phobias, weight loss

Applications and Paradigms:

Induced Compliance:

• occurs when people act against their attitudes with minimal justification, causing dissonance.

  • Example: Festinger & Carlsmith (1959):

    Participants lied about a boring task for $1 (minimal incentive) rated it as more enjoyable than those who paid $20, as the latter could justify their lie with the monetary reward.

Applications and Paradigms:

Free Choice

• pre-decision dissonance involves uncertainty; post-decision dissonance leads to confidence in the chosen option.

  • Example: Bettors felt more confident after placing their bets (Younger, Walker, & Arrowood, 1977)

Applications and Paradigms:

Post-decisional conflict

Actions like eating fried grasshoppers (Zimbardo et al., 1965) show greater attitude change when justification is minimal (e.g., a negative authority figure). Compliance under adverse conditions create more dissonance, leading to stronger justification and attitude change.

Self and social identity:

Role of the self

Self-consistency theory (Aronson, 1999):

• People strive for a self-image of morality and competence. Counter-attitudinal behaviour challenges this image, motivating change.

Self-Affirmation Theory (Steele, 1988):

• dissonance can be mitigated by affirming competence in another domain. High self-esteem enables self-affirmation, reducing dissonance.

Self and social identity:

Vicarious Dissonance

Observing in-group members acting counter to shared norms induces dissonance in observers, especially if an out-group criticizes the behaviour.

Self and social identity:

Social Support and Group Dynamics

• in-group social support for counter-attitudinal behaviour reduces dissonance.

  • Example: environmental hypocrisy from an in-group member strengthens pro-environmental attitudes, especially when criticized by an out-group (Gaffney et al., 2012)

Alternative Theories:

Self-Perception Theory (Bem, 1972)

• people infer attitudes from their behaviour, especially within their latitude of acceptance (behaviours perceived as reasonable or consistent)

  • Example: paying slightly more for a meal fits within acceptable behaviour, aligning with self-perception; paying double induces dissonance.

Alternative Theories:

New Look Model (Cooper & Fazio, 1984)

Dissonance is triggered when:

• behaviour is voluntary

• negative consequences arise

Individuals accept responsibility for their behaviour, experience dissonance, and adjust their attitudes to align with their actions.

Key applications:

Health Behaviours

Dissonance is leveraged to promote safe sex, weight loss, and healthy lifestyles by creating tension between existing behaviours and desired outcomes.

Key applications:

Stereotype Change

Contact experiences (e.g., student exchanges) can challenge stereotypes, creating dissonance that may alter attitudes. However, if experiences align with stereotypes, attitudes may harden (Stroebe et al., 1988)

Key applications:

Decision-Making

Dissonance reduction influences choices in various domains, such as betting, consumer behaviour and political attitudes.

Strengths

• explains diverse phenomena, including effort justification, induced compliance, and post-decision confidence.

• Provides insight into the mechanism of lasting attitude and behaviour change.

Critiques and Alternatives

• dissonance is harder to induce than initially believed.

• Self-perception theory offers an alternative explanation for some phenomena, focusing on self-attribution rather than tension resolution.

• The New Look Model integrates attributional processes and consequences, addressing some critiques.

Enduring Relevance

Despite challenges, cognitive dissonance theory remains a cornerstone of social psychology, supported by over 1,000 studies and ongoing research.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance theory is a robust framework for understanding attitude change, grounded in the motivation to resolve psychological tension from conflicting cognitions. Its adaptability across contexts, from health promotion to social identity, ensures its continued importance in explaining human behaviour.