Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
G. Johnstone Spring 2002
In 1951, Leon Festinger was asked to develop a “propositional inventory” of the area of “communication and social influence.” The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance is what resulted from his research (Festinger, 1957). Festinger provides three major tenets of his theory. I will focus on those main points in my examination of this theory. According to Attitude Change, “dissonance theory is a type of consistency or balance theory…it is one of the most controversial theories of our time” (Collins, Kiesler, & Miller, 1969). In this paper, I will primarily cite Festinger himself because he is quite obviously the most reliable source on this subject.
Festinger describes the first principle of his theory by saying, “There may exist dissonant or “nonfitting” relations among cognitive elements” (Festinger, 1957). This first principle is basically a description of the theory. Dissonance is basically a theory of consistency. It deals with the relationship between cognitive elements and what happens when those elements are inconsistent with one another (Collins, Kiesler, & Miller, 1969). In simple terms, dissonance can be described as two elements like a person and their beliefs/values not fitting or making sense. Both Attitude Change and Festinger give the example of a smoker. The two cognitive elements present in this situation would be “The knowledge that I smoke heavily” and “The knowledge that smoking causes cancer.” If this person understood and believed those two statements, it is logical to ask why they continue to smoke. That is where cognitive dissonance comes in. In his hypothesis, Festinger explains that:
The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance.
When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance.
It seems that what Festinger is referring to is the human nature to justify one’s own actions. In other words, a smoker will try to justify the act of smoking by telling himself/herself that Cancer won’t happen to them. Smokers know that nicotine can cause Cancer, but they justify smoking by telling themselves that the next cigarette will not be the deciding factor in their health. Another example of this dissonance reduction phenomenon deals with unprotected sex. Someone who participates in unsafe sex knows that sexually transmitted diseases are received through unprotected sex. However, they don’t think it can happen to them. These two understandings conflict with each other, and are therefore dissonant. These people tell themselves they are invulnerable as a means to reduce the dissonance. If a person believed that the next time they had unprotected sex it would result in the contraction of AIDS, they would probably avoid the situation. The cognitive dissonance would be too high. That is the reason why people need to self-justify.
Festinger also discusses the reasons for the persistence of dissonance. One method is to change one’s actions. The smoker would quit once he gains the knowledge about the ill effects of nicotine. Once he quits, his beliefs are consonant rather than dissonant, with his actions (Festinger, 1957). Another way to reduce dissonance is to alter one’s knowledge. If a person convinces themselves that smoking really isn’t unhealthy, their beliefs are then consonant with their actions.
Festinger also addresses the situation when the smoker is unable to reduce or eliminate dissonance. This is exemplified when the smoker believes that quitting the bad habit would cause more pain or discomfort than smoking will. Festinger indicates that in this situation, the smoker might unsuccessfully attempt to find information that would effectively negate what they know to be true. When this happens, the smoker will continue to smoke, but he will also never give up on the search for information that would reduce his cognitive dissonance.
After his discussion of dissonance in related cognitions, Festinger introduces the idea of irrelevant relations. For instance, a man knows that the Arizona Diamondbacks won the World Series in 2001, and he also knows that heavy smog plays a large role in the creation of beautiful Los Angeles sunsets. The two beliefs are irrelevant of each other. However, there are some circumstances that may arise that could make the two cognitions relevant to each other and would thereby create either dissonance or consonance. This would happen if a free agent baseball player decided to play for the Dodgers because he was going to get more money than when he played for Arizona, even though he knew L.A. had poor air quality.
This assignment has been quite interesting. I think Festinger’s Theory of Cognitive Dissonance is complex, but he did a good job of explaining the main principles of it. His examples were particularly enlightening. At times I had difficulty with his language when describing the minor details of the theory, but for the most part, I understood what he was saying.
What I find particularly relevant is his reference to smoking. People know nicotine and tar are hazardous to their health, but many continue to smoke. They try to justify why they do it by citing examples of people that smoked for years without ever getting Cancer. They don’t do it to convince other people of the errors in medical science, they do it to convince themselves that they will not be harmed. They need that self-assurance in order to reduce cognitive dissonance. I find this phenomenon to be fascinating. I really feel like I have learned something significant while studying this theory.
Works Cited
Festinger,Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, Illinois: Row Peterson & Co. 1957.
Kiesler,Collins,& Miller. Attitude Change. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1969.