Attitudes and Persuasion: Learn It 2—Cognitive Dissonance

What is Cognitive Dissonance?

Social psychologists have long shown that people are motivated to feel good about themselves and to protect a positive self-image (Tavris & Aronson, 2008). In the United States—where individualism and self-enhancement are common—people often see themselves as good, capable, and above average in many desirable traits (Ehrlinger, Gilovich, & Ross, 2005). When something threatens this positive self-view, it can influence our behavior, attitudes, and beliefs.

cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance is the psychological discomfort we feel when we hold two or more inconsistent thoughts, attitudes, or behaviors (Festinger, 1957). In other words, when what we do conflicts with what we believe, we experience tension that pushes us to resolve the mismatch.

If you believe smoking is bad for your health but you continue to smoke, you experience conflict between your belief and behavior.

A diagram shows the process of cognitive dissonance. There is cognitive dissonance when someone believes “Smoking is bad for your health” and “I am a smoker”. A flow diagram joins these statements in a process labeled, “Remove dissonance tension,” with two possible flows. The first flow path shows the warning on a pack of cigarettes with a checkmark imposed over the image that is labeled, “Smoking is bad for your health.” The path then shows a photograph of an arm with a nicotine patch that is labeled, “I quit smoking.” The second flow path shows the warning on a pack of cigarettes with a question mark imposed over the image and is labeled, “Research is inconclusive,” then shows a photograph of a person smoking labeled, “I am still a smoker.”
Figure 1. Cognitive dissonance is aroused by inconsistent beliefs and behaviors. Believing cigarettes are bad for your health, but smoking cigarettes anyway can cause cognitive dissonance. To reduce cognitive dissonance, individuals can change their behavior, as in quitting smoking, or change their beliefs, such as discounting the evidence that smoking is harmful. (credit “cigarettes”: modification of work by CDC/Debora Cartagena; “patch”: modification of “RegBarc”/Wikimedia Commons; “smoking”: modification of work by Tim Parkinson)

Research shows that dissonance is most likely when the inconsistency threatens our positive self-image (Greenwald & Ronis, 1978). It is not just uncomfortable psychologically—it also produces physiological arousal (Croyle & Cooper, 1983) and activates brain regions involved in emotion and cognitive control (van Veen, Krug, Schooler, & Carter, 2009). Because of this, people are highly motivated to reduce dissonance in whatever way they can.

Reducing cognitive dissonance

We can reduce cognitive dissonance by bringing our cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors in line—that is, making them harmonious. This can be done in different ways, such as:

  • changing our discrepant behavior (e.g., stopping smoking),
  • changing our cognitions through rationalization or denial (e.g., telling ourselves that health risks can be reduced by smoking filtered cigarettes),
  • adding a new cognition (e.g., “Smoking suppresses my appetite so I don’t become overweight, which is good for my health.”).

Example: Dissonance in a Difficult Situation

A photograph shows a person doing pushups while a military leader stands over the person; other people are doing jumping jacks in the background.
Figure 2. A person who has chosen a difficult path must deal with cognitive dissonance in addition to many other discomforts. (credit: Tyler J. Bolken)

Consider John, a 20-year-old who enlists in the military. Boot camp is exhausting—early wake-ups, physical strain, little sleep, and constant stress. John feels miserable, and he cannot change his behavior because he is legally committed to four years of service.

If John continues thinking only about how miserable he is, he will remain in a state of ongoing dissonance. To reduce it, he may shift his beliefs:

  • “This experience is making me stronger and more disciplined.”

  • “I’m learning valuable skills and contributing to something meaningful.”

By reframing the situation, John restores consistency between his experience and his self-image, reducing dissonance and increasing his satisfaction.

The Semmelweis Reflex: A Classic Case of Cognitive Dissonance

A well-known historical example of cognitive dissonance is the Semmelweis reflex—the tendency to reject new information when it threatens existing beliefs or professional identity.

When Ignaz Semmelweis, a 19th-century Hungarian physician, showed that handwashing dramatically reduced maternal deaths, many physicians refused to accept his findings because doing so meant admitting their own practices had been harming patients. This clash created intense cognitive dissonance.

To reduce the discomfort, many doctors chose to reject the evidence rather than revise their beliefs about themselves or their profession. This leads to other psychological concepts, like belief perseverance (the tendency to stick to initial beliefs even when presented with contradicting evidence) and confirmation bias (the inclination to favor information that confirms pre-existing beliefs while ignoring evidence that challenges them).

Effect of Initiation

The military example above shows that a difficult initiation into a group influences us to like the group more.

Another social psychology concept addresses the effort invested into something and our feelings about it—the justification of effort.

justification of effort

The concept of justification of effort suggests that the more effort we put into something, the more we tend to value it.

According to this theory, when we invest time, energy, or discomfort into a goal, we convince ourselves that the outcome must be worthwhile. It helps us avoid the feeling that our effort was “for nothing.”

For example, if you move to an apartment and spend hours assembling a dresser you bought from Ikea, you will value that more than a fancier dresser your parents bought you. We do not want to waste time and effort joining a group that we eventually leave.

Initiation Study: Aronson & Mills (1959)

A classic experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrated this justification of the effort effect.

College students volunteered to join a campus group that would meet regularly to discuss the psychology of sex. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: no initiation, an easy initiation, and a difficult initiation into the group.

After participating in the first discussion, which was deliberately made very boring, participants rated how much they liked the group. Participants who underwent a difficult initiation process to join the group rated the group more favorably than did participants with an easy initiation or no initiation (Figure 3).

A bar graph has an x-axis labeled, “Difficulty of initiation” and a y-axis labeled, “Relative magnitude of liking a group.” The liking of the group is low to moderate for the groups whose difficulty of initiation was “none” or “easy,” but high for the group whose difficulty of initiation was “difficult.”
Figure 3. Justification of effort has a distinct effect on a person liking a group. Students in the difficult initiation condition liked the group more than students in other conditions due to the justification of effort.

Similar effects can be seen in another study of how student effort affects course evaluations. Heckert, Latier, Ringwald-Burton, and Drazen (2006) surveyed 463 undergraduates enrolled in courses at a midwestern university about the amount of effort that their courses required of them. In addition, the students were also asked to evaluate various aspects of the course.

Given what you’ve just read, it will come as no surprise that those courses that were associated with the highest level of effort were evaluated as being more valuable than those that did not. Furthermore, students indicated that they learned more in courses that required more effort, regardless of the grades that they received in those courses (Heckert et al., 2006).

Worth the “Pain”

Marco and Maria live in Fairfield County, Connecticut, an expensive area with a high cost of living. Although Marco telecommutes and they often feel financially strained, they choose to stay. When asked why they do not move somewhere more affordable, they emphasize the area’s beauty, beaches, and comfort.

From a cognitive dissonance perspective, their reasoning helps resolve the conflict between:

  • Belief: “We should live within our means.”
  • Behavior: Continuing to live in an expensive community they struggle to afford.

By focusing on the positive features of the area, they create consistency between their choices and their self-image as competent decision-makers.