UPI Study › Courses › Advanced Social Psychology › Free lessons › Lesson 3.6 Free with a free account
The Discomfort of Contradiction: Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life
Advanced Social Psychology · Chapter 3: Persuasion and Cognitive ProcessesSection 3.6 · lesson 17 of 8513 min · free with a free account
Free preview
Create a free account to keep watching
It takes a minute and costs nothing. Your free account unlocks all of Chapter 1 and 3 more lessons of Advanced Social Psychology.
Lesson complete
Earn the 3 college credits for Advanced Social Psychology
Enrolling adds a quiz after each lesson, the graded work and the official transcript. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
Next lesson: Knowing Yourself Through Action: An Introduction to Self-Perception Theory →← From Intention to Action: The Theory of Planned BehaviorNext lesson: Knowing Yourself Through Action: An Introduction to Self-Perception Theory →
In this lesson
When behavior drives attitude, and the cheapest repair is to change your mind.
- State Festinger's formulation and why dissonance is motivational
- Interpret the 4 classic experimental paradigms
- Identify the 3 strategies for reducing dissonance
- Compare the new-look, self-consistency and self-affirmation accounts
Free study notes
Get this lesson's notes by email
The key points and 4 practice questions with answers, in your inbox. One email, free.
One email. Unsubscribe in one click.
Transcript
Everything said in the video, section by section (1,733 words). Read along, or search it.
Persuasion and Cognitive Processes
The Discomfort of Contradiction
Everything in this chapter so far has treated attitudes as drivers of behavior. Messages shift attitudes, attitudes guide intentions, intentions produce action. Cognitive dissonance theory inverts that whole order. It says the behavior often comes first, and the attitude rearranges itself afterward. This is one of the most generative ideas in the history of social psychology. It is also one of the most counter-intuitive. We will cover the four classic paradigms, and the three ways people find relief. Then the refinements that specify when dissonance actually arises. And finally why this particular mechanism carries a sharper ethical edge than most.
The Inversion
Behavior First, Attitude Afterward
Leon Festinger set out the theory in nineteen fifty-seven. When people hold two or more cognitions that contradict one another. Particularly when one of those cognitions is a behavior already performed. The resulting psychological discomfort motivates them to reduce the inconsistency. And here is the move that makes the theory interesting. Frequently, the easiest way to reduce it is to change the attitude. To change the attitude so that it fits the behavior, rather than the reverse. That single idea explains a surprising amount. It explains why people who make costly commitments come to value them more. Why minor inducements can produce larger attitude change than major ones. Why disconfirmed beliefs sometimes intensify rather than collapse. And why people who have acted unethically often decide the act was justified.
The Definition
Dissonance Is a Drive State
Let us define the term precisely. Cognitive dissonance is the unpleasant state arising from inconsistent cognitions. Beliefs, attitudes, values, or knowledge about one's own behavior. And it is strongest when the inconsistency implicates the self. Its magnitude depends on two things. The importance of the cognitions involved. And the ratio of inconsistent to consistent elements. Now the framing that does the theoretical work. Like hunger or thirst, dissonance is a drive state. It motivates action until it is reduced. If dissonance were only an unpleasant feeling, you could simply tolerate it. Treating it as a drive is what makes the theory predict a specific repair.
Three Repairs
How People Get Relief
When inconsistency arises, there are three principal routes to relief. You can change a cognition. You can add consonant cognitions that bolster the side you have chosen. Or you can trivialize the inconsistency, making it feel less significant. Which route someone takes is not random. It is shaped by which cognition is most resistant to change. And that is usually the behavior, because it has already occurred. Take a smoker who cannot quit, and watch all three routes in the same person.
The Three, In Detail
Revise, Outweigh, or Shrink
Route one. Change a cognition, most commonly the attitude. The smoker downgrades their belief in the dangers of smoking. Or upgrades a countervailing benefit. It helps me concentrate. This is the route at the heart of dissonance-based persuasion. Route two. Add consonant cognitions. Rather than revising an existing belief, you add new ones on your side. Smoking helps me socialize. My grandfather smoked and lived to ninety. The original inconsistency is still formally present. It is just outweighed now, by a richer set of consonant cognitions. Route three. Trivialize the inconsistency. Reduce the perceived importance of the cognitions in conflict. Yes, smoking is bad for health, but health isn't everything. That is cognitively efficient, and it has a cost. It limits the depth of subsequent engagement with either cognition. Notice that all three routes left the behavior untouched. Behavior is the most resistant element, because it already happened. Attitudes, beliefs and values are revisable. Past actions are not. The exception is when the behavior can be undone. Returning a purchase, ending a relationship, leaving a group. Then behavior-side adjustment becomes the cheaper route instead.
The Evidence
Four Classic Paradigms
Four paradigms have generated most of the empirical support. Each isolates a distinct route to behavior-driven attitude change. The first is induced compliance, from Festinger and Carlsmith in nineteen fifty-nine. Participants performed a boring task. Then they were paid either one dollar or twenty dollars. Paid to tell the next participant that the task had been enjoyable. The second is the forbidden toy study, from Aronson and Carlsmith. Children were told not to play with an attractive toy. Under either a mild threat or a severe one. Children under mild threat came to devalue the toy. Those under severe threat retained their preference for it. The third is effort justification, from Aronson and Mills. Participants underwent a mild or severe initiation to join a discussion group. Severe-initiation participants rated the group as more attractive. The fourth is free choice, from Brehm in nineteen fifty-six. Participants chose between two equally attractive items, then re-rated both. The chosen item became more attractive; the rejected one, less. That pattern has a name: the spread of alternatives.
The Key Result
Why the Smaller Payment Changed More Minds
Go back to induced compliance, because it tells the story in pure form. Participants lied about a boring task, and were paid for it. The ones paid less ended up believing the lie. That result should feel wrong, so let us walk through why it happens. Twenty dollars was a large sum in nineteen fifty-nine. It provided ample external justification for the lie. The participant could say, I lied because I was well paid. Not because I really enjoyed the task. No inconsistency there. Dissonance was therefore low, and no attitude change was required. One dollar was insufficient justification. That participant had to explain to themselves why they had lied. And the cheapest available explanation was about the task itself. It must have been more enjoyable than I initially thought. So the attitude moved to fit the behavior. Notice how sharply this contradicts a simple reward account. Reward theory predicts more payment produces more attitude change. Dissonance theory predicts the opposite, and the opposite is what happens.
Refinement I And II
Responsibility, and the Self
The theory has been refined three times, and each refinement narrows it usefully. The new-look model came from Cooper and Fazio, in nineteen eighty-four. They argued dissonance does not arise from logical inconsistency as such. It arises from feeling personally responsible for an aversive consequence. An aversive consequence that was foreseeable at the time. And they noted that all four classic paradigms contain those elements. In induced compliance, the participant freely chooses to mislead someone. In effort justification, they choose to undergo a costly initiation. In free choice, they accept responsibility for the rejected alternative's loss. That model successfully predicts when dissonance does and does not occur. And it integrates dissonance theory with attribution theory. The second refinement is self-consistency theory, from Aronson. He proposed that dissonance is essentially about the self. Discomfort arises when your actions implicate you as immoral or incompetent. Or otherwise inconsistent with the self-concept you hold. On that view, the smoker's discomfort is not just logical tension. It is a threat to the self-image of being a rational person. Which yields a testable prediction about who feels dissonance most. Effects should be stronger for people with high and stable self-concepts. And weaker where the self-concept already accommodates the behavior.
Refinement III
Self-Affirmation: Repairing From a Different Direction
The third refinement is the most practically useful of the three. Steele's self-affirmation theory, from nineteen eighty-eight. It proposes that the underlying motivation is protecting overall self-integrity. Not resolving any specific cognitive inconsistency. And that implies something you would not otherwise predict. People can reduce dissonance by affirming an unrelated valued part of the self. Recalling a kindness. Reflecting on a relationship. Completing a values exercise. None of which touches the inconsistency at all. The prediction has been repeatedly confirmed. A brief affirmation exercise reduces the attitude change that would otherwise follow. Because the threatened self has been buttressed from a different direction. Self-affirmation has since become a leading evidence-based intervention. Brief exercises reduce defensive responses to health warnings. They improve receptivity to critical feedback. They have narrowed racial achievement gaps in education. And they increase engagement with counter-attitudinal information.
Applied Dissonance
The Hypocrisy Paradigm
Aronson, Fried and Stone introduced an elegant applied paradigm in nineteen ninety-one. This is dissonance used deliberately, as an intervention. First, participants made a public statement advocating a behavior. Condom use, in the original study. Then they were reminded of past instances where they had failed to practice it. Public advocacy, plus private inconsistency. That combination produced strong dissonance. And substantial subsequent behavior change. The hypocrisy paradigm has since been applied widely. To water conservation, recycling, exercise, and several health behaviors. It has often outperformed straightforward persuasion. And there is a reason for that worth noticing. The receiver supplies the argument, so there is nothing to argue back against.
Everyday Life
Three Places You Have Already Seen This
You have already met dissonance in three everyday places. The first is post-decisional regret. After a significant decision, people show the spread of alternatives. They elevate the option they chose, and downgrade the one they rejected. That explains why people defend their choices so vigorously. Even when the alternative would have served them equally well. It also explains why returning a costly purchase is rarer than economics predicts. The second is sunk-cost reasoning, and commitment escalation. People keep investing in failing courses of action. Because abandoning them would force a confrontation. A confrontation between past investment and current evidence of failure. I have already put in so much, I cannot quit now. That is dissonance reasoning, not economic reasoning. The third is counter-attitudinal advocacy, in education and in therapy. Interventions sometimes ask people to argue for positions they do not hold. Used carefully, that exploits dissonance to produce genuine attitude shifts. Used carelessly, it produces superficial compliance, or triggers reactance. The classical findings warn about one condition in particular. Low external justification is essential for genuine internalization. Participants must feel that they chose the advocacy themselves.
Consolidate
A Powerful Mechanism, and Its Ethical Edge
Consolidating. Inconsistent cognitions produce an unpleasant motivational state. That state drives the receiver to restore consistency somehow. They change a cognition, add consonant ones, or trivialize the inconsistency. Whichever route is cheapest, given which elements are most resistant. The classic paradigms show behavior driving attitude change. In directions that contradict simple reward-based predictions. Later refinements specify when dissonance arises and how it can be redirected. The new-look model, self-consistency theory, and self-affirmation. Now the ethical point, which is sharper here than elsewhere in this chapter. Dissonance-based persuasion is powerful precisely because it bypasses reward. The receiver persuades themselves, which is why it lasts. That same feature is why it gets exploited. Cult recruitment, coercive sales tactics, manipulative commitment-building. All of them run on dissonance dynamics. So responsible practitioners apply two tests before using it. Is the target attitude one the receiver would endorse on reflection? And does the receiver retain reasonable freedom to disengage?
About Advanced Social Psychology at UPI Study
Advanced Social Psychology (Psychology 310) is a self-paced online course of 85 video lessons in 12 chapters, from attitudes, persuasion and the self to prejudice, attraction and relationships, conformity and obedience, helping, aggression and social life online. It carries a NCCRS credit recommendation for 3 semester credits.
Every lesson transcript is free on pages like this one, and the videos are free with a free UPI Study account. Enrolling adds a practice quiz after each lesson, the graded work and final exam that earn the credit, lifetime access, and an official transcript on completion. UPI Study has helped over 130,000 students with college credits. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Enroll now → Course details Download the syllabus All Psychology and social science courses Every course with PRO →
Compare: Social Psychology vs Sociology
Why take it here
Why students take Advanced Social Psychology with UPI Study
Where the credit goes
Universities that work with NCCRS
Advanced Social Psychology carries a NCCRS credit recommendation. These universities work with NCCRS; some are UPI Study's signed partners. ACE and NCCRS have over 2,100 cooperating colleges that will consider accepting credits; the final decision is with the universities.
Thomas Edison State UniversitySigned partner
University of the PeopleSigned partner
Charter Oak State CollegeSigned partner
Strayer UniversitySigned partner
Columbia Southern UniversitySigned partner
Indiana TechSigned partner
Penn StateWorks with NCCRS
Southern New Hampshire UniversityWorks with NCCRS
SUNYWorks with NCCRS
+many more cooperating universitiesFind my college →Find my college → Not listed? Ask Athena in the corner of this page, or book a 15-minute call.
FAQ
Questions students ask us
About The Discomfort of Contradiction: Cognitive Dissonance in Everyday Life
What is cognitive dissonance?
What are the ways to reduce cognitive dissonance?
What did Festinger and Carlsmith's 1959 experiment show?
What is the hypocrisy paradigm in cognitive dissonance research?
About the Advanced Social Psychology course
How many college credits is Advanced Social Psychology?
How much does Advanced Social Psychology cost and what is included?
Which universities accept UPI Study credits?
How long does Advanced Social Psychology take?
How are the exams done?
How do my credits reach my college?
Ready for the full course? Earn 3 credits in Advanced Social Psychology.
85 video lessons, a quiz after each one, and the graded work that earns the credit. Recommended for credit by NCCRS.
3 credits · NCCRSEnroll →