Study Notes on Cognitive Dissonance

Self-Justification in Cognitive Dissonance

Chapter Overview

  • Concept: This chapter focuses on the psychological phenomenon of cognitive dissonance, its implications in decision-making, morality, identity, and irrational behavior.
  • Objectives: Understanding how individuals justify their decisions or beliefs when faced with contradictions in their thoughts and actions.

Class Outline

  • Cognitive Dissonance recap: Review of the fundamental concepts of cognitive dissonance.
  • Internal justification: Exploration of how people internally rationalize their behaviors to ease the discomfort of dissonance.
  • Threats to identity: Analyzing how cognitive dissonance threatens one's self-identity and the justifications that ensue.
  • Irrational behavior: Discussion on how the desire to reduce dissonance can lead to irrational decision-making.
  • Cognitive dissonance and decision-making: Understanding the role of dissonance in the choices individuals make.
  • Morality: The relationship between dissonance and moral reasoning.
  • Irrevocability: The impact of finality in decisions on cognitive dissonance.
  • Roots of cognitive dissonance: Examination of the foundational aspects that lead to the experience of dissonance.

Cognitive Dissonance

  • Definition:
    • Cognitive Dissonance: A state of tension that occurs whenever an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions or behaviors that are psychologically inconsistent.
    • Cognitions include:
    • Attitudes
    • Ideas
    • Beliefs
    • Opinions
  • Motivation to reduce dissonance: Humans are inherently motivated to achieve harmony in their cognitive frameworks.

Types of Justification

  • Insufficient justification: Insufficient external reasons lead to dissonance.
  • Two types of justification for dissonance actions:
    1. External justification:
    • Justification derived from situational factors.
    1. Internal justification:
    • Justification stemming from a change in one’s attitudes to align more closely with their behavior, often used when external justification is lacking.

Strategies for Reducing Dissonance Using Internal Justification

  • Changing cognitions: Altering one or both cognitions to align consistently with each other.
    • Example: Deciding not to fear a situation when there is no evident threat.
  • Adding cognitions: Introducing additional beliefs to bridge gaps between original cognitions.
    • Example: Adding the belief in a potential threat when there isn't a direct one.
  • Changing pre-existing attitudes: Adjusting one's beliefs to be consistent with their behaviors.
    • Example: Reassessing fear by defining oneself as a cautious person reacting correctly to a nearby but non-immediate threat.

Dissonance Through Flowcharts

  • Several flowcharts illustrate how cognitive dissonance interacts with individuals' beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors across different instances.

Forms of External Justification

  • Examples of sufficient external justification include:
    1. Experiences outside of personal control.
    2. Significant rewards or punishments.
    3. Close relationships that can affect decision-making.

Dissonance in Threats to Identity

  • Example: A CEO of a cigarette company faces dissonance when thinking
    • Cognition 1: “I am a decent, kind human being.”
    • Cognition 2: “I am contributing to the early death of millions of people.”
  • Strategies for resolving dissonance:
    • Changing one or both cognitions (e.g., denying a kind identity).
    • Adding new cognitions to revisit self-perception (e.g., justifying smoking).
    • Changing pre-existing attitudes (e.g., believing cigarettes aren't addictive).

Dissonance Reduction and Irrational Behavior

  • Fundamental motives leading to dissonance:
    • The desire to be correct.
    • The desire to believe oneself to be correct.
  • Rationalizing behavior: People often rationalize decisions to convince themselves of correctness, leading to irrational actions.
  • Memory biases in dissonance reduction:
    • People remember plausible arguments supporting their opinions better than those against them, as seen in studies by Jones & Kohler (1959).

Seeking Evidence from Multiple Sides

  • Dissonance also influences individuals in their decision-making process both before and after making choices.
  • People primarily focus on positive aspects of their chosen alternatives while downplaying negatives of alternatives.
  • Brehm (1956) study: Participants favored rated appliances more positively after making a decision.
  • Johnson & Rusbult (1989): Commitment in relationships reduces the allure of alternative partners.

Dissonance and Morality

  • Influence of justification on moral views:
    • Example from Mills (1958): Children who cheated on tests became more lenient toward cheating, while those who did not cheat became less tolerant.

Dissonance and Irrevocability

  • When decisions can be reversed, dissonance intensity reduces.
  • Studies:
    • Knox & Inkster (1968): People were more confident about their bet on a horse after placing it.
    • Gilbert & Ebert (2002): Those who can change their choice for a photograph ended up liking their final decision less than those unable to change.

Lowballing Strategy

  • Definition: Offering a lower initial price that later increases once commitment is established often maintains customer compliance.
  • Cialdini (1978): Found that individuals commit to purchasing outside their budget when an attractive low price was initially offered.
    • Factors include signing a down payment and the emotional anticipation of owning the product, leading to dissonance when the deal changes.

Unconscious Nature of Dissonance Reduction

  • Awareness: Dissonance reduction occurs unconsciously, making it challenging for individuals to accurately forecast affective outcomes of their decisions.
  • Regret: This unconscious process clarifies why people often do not regret many decisions made.

Universality of Dissonance Reduction

  • Evidence for universality: Research suggests cognitive dissonance is a common experience across cultures, with evolutionary roots that favor sticking to familiar beliefs over risky new ones.
  • Distinct neurological processes for motivated reasoning versus logical reasoning as found in research by Westen et al. (2006).
  • Individual variation exists in the situations that trigger dissonance rather than on its experience.

Constructive Nature of Cognitive Dissonance

  • Dissonance can serve beneficial roles in developing critical thinking and self-reflection in various domains, including personal growth and moral evaluations.

Class Summary

  • To reduce cognitive dissonance internally, individuals can:
    • Change behaviors that provoke dissonance.
    • Add opening cognitions to reconcile conflicting beliefs.
    • Change pre-existing attitudes for consistency with behaviors arousing dissonance.
  • Dissonance arises from decision-making, reinforcing existing beliefs post-decision.
  • Dissonance experiences are largely unconscious and universally human.