Cognitive dissonance - what is this concept in psychology? Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. The state of cognitive dissonance The sequence of the main stages in the development of cognitive dissonance

The most famous work of the classic of psychology Leon Festinger in a modern presentation. The concept of "cognitive dissonance" has firmly entered our lives - this psychological phenomenon affects our behavior and perception of the world. People strive for an internal balance between the information they receive and the personal motives of their behavior - sometimes even contrary to common sense. The desire to reduce dissonance is the most important need in the life of any person - the author proves this with the results of numerous experiments and amazing historical facts.

* * *

The following excerpt from the book The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Leon Festinger, 1957) provided by our book partner - the company LitRes.

Introduction to dissonance theory

It has long been noticed that a person strives for inner harmony. His views and attitudes tend to unite in groups characterized by the consistency of their constituent elements. Of course, it is not difficult to find exceptions to this rule. Thus, a certain person may believe that black Americans are no worse than white fellow citizens, but this same person would prefer that they not live in his immediate neighborhood. Or another example: someone may think that children should behave quietly and modestly, but he also feels obvious pride when his beloved child energetically attracts the attention of adult guests. This inconsistency, which can sometimes take quite dramatic forms, attracts our attention mainly because it contrasts sharply with the background idea of ​​​​internal coherence. In most cases, interrelated opinions and social attitudes are consistent with each other. One study after another reports on the consistency of political, social and other attitudes of a person.

The same kind of consistency exists between a person's knowledge and beliefs and what he does. A person who is convinced that higher education is a good thing will encourage his children to go to university in every possible way. A child who knows that he will be severely punished for an offense will try not to commit it, or at least try not to get caught in it. All this is so obvious that we take examples of such behavior for granted. Our attention is primarily drawn to various kinds of exceptions to generally consistent behavior. For example, a person may be aware of the health risks of smoking but continue to smoke; many people commit crimes fully aware that the likelihood of being caught and punished is very high.

Taking consistency for granted, what about these kinds of exceptions? Very rarely, if ever, are they recognized as contradictions by the individual himself. He usually makes more or less successful attempts to somehow rationalize such a mismatch. Thus, a person who continues to smoke, knowing that it is harmful to his health, may also consider, for example, that the pleasure derived from smoking is so great that it is worth it; or that changes in a smoker's health are not as fatal as thought; that it is impossible, being a living person, to always avoid all existing dangers; or, finally, that if he quit smoking, he might put on weight, which is also bad for health. Thus, he quite successfully reconciles his smoking habit with his beliefs about smoking. However, people are not always so successful in trying to rationalize their behavior; for one reason or another, attempts to ensure consistency may fail. The contradiction simply continues to exist. In this case, there is psychological discomfort.

Thus, we have come to formulate the main hypotheses, the consequences of which this book is devoted to. But first, let's replace the word "contradiction" with a term that has less logical connotations, namely the term "dissonance." Similarly, instead of the word "consistency" I will use the more neutral term "consonance". The formal definition of these concepts will be given below, but now let's rely on their implicit meaning, which we introduced above in the initial reasoning. So, I want to formulate the main hypotheses as follows.

1. The existence of dissonance creates psychological discomfort and will motivate the individual to try to reduce the degree of dissonance and achieve consonance.

2. When there is dissonance, in addition to the fact that the individual will seek to reduce it, he will also actively avoid situations and information that can lead to an increase in dissonance.

Before proceeding to a detailed development of the theory of dissonance and the desire to reduce it, it is necessary to clarify the nature of dissonance as a psychological phenomenon, the nature of the concept that describes it, and the possibilities of applying the theory associated with this concept. The two main hypotheses formulated above serve as a good starting point for this. Although they are related to dissonance, they are actually very general hypotheses. The term "dissonance" in them can be freely replaced by another concept of a similar nature, for example, "hunger", "frustration" or "disequilibrium", and the resulting hypotheses will be quite meaningful.

I suggest that dissonance, that is, the existence of contradictory relationships between individual elements in a knowledge system, is itself a motivating factor. By the term "knowledge" I will understand any opinion or belief of an individual regarding the surrounding world, himself, his own behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be understood as an initial condition that leads to actions aimed at reducing it, in the same way, for example, that hunger induces activity aimed at satisfying it. This is a completely different kind of motivation than the one that psychologists are used to dealing with, but nevertheless, as we will see below, no less powerful.

Now a few words about the further content of this book. It is devoted to the analysis of a variety of situations associated with the emergence of cognitive dissonance and human attempts to reduce it. If a certain author were to set out to write a book about the role of hunger as a drive that motivates human behavior, the result would be similar in character to my book. Such a work could contain chapters analyzing the effects of trying to reduce hunger in a variety of settings, from an infant in a high chair to adults at a formal banquet. Similarly, this book also describes and studies a variety of situations, ranging from decision making by an individual to the behavior of large groups of people. Since the desire to reduce dissonance is a basic human process, it is not surprising that the manifestations of this process can be observed in such a wide range.

The emergence and persistence of dissonance

When and why does dissonance occur? Why do people sometimes find that they do things that are not in line with their thoughts, or that they have some kind of belief that is different from all the other beliefs they have? The answer to this question can be found by analyzing two typical situations in which dissonance can arise.

1. In a situation where a person becomes an eyewitness to new events or when he becomes aware of any new information, there may be at least a momentary dissonance with existing knowledge, opinions or ideas about his behavior. Since a person cannot fully control the events taking place in the world around him, and the information that comes to him, such dissonance easily arises.

So, for example, a person plans a picnic trip in full confidence that the weather will be warm and sunny. However, before the very departure, it may start to rain. The knowledge that it is raining will come into dissonance with his certainty that the day is sunny and with his plans to go out of town. Or another example. Imagine that a person, completely convinced of the inefficiency of an automatic transmission, accidentally stumbles upon an article with a convincing description of its advantages. Once again, there will be dissonance in the individual's knowledge system, at least for a brief moment.

2. Even in the absence of new, unforeseen events or information, dissonance is undoubtedly an everyday phenomenon. Very few things in the world are completely black or white. There are very few situations in life that are so obvious that behavior in them or opinions about them would not be somewhat contradictory. For example, an American farmer from the Midwest may be a Republican and yet disagree with his party's position on a program of state support for agricultural prices. A person buying a new car may prefer the economy of one model and at the same time the design of another. An entrepreneur who wants to profitably invest free cash knows that the result of his investment depends on economic conditions over which he is not able to influence. In any situation that requires a person to formulate an opinion or make a choice, a dissonance is inevitably created between the knowledge corresponding to the act performed and the knowledge and opinions that are associated with other possible courses of action.

Thus, the range of situations in which dissonance is almost inevitable is quite wide, but our task is to investigate the circumstances under which dissonance, once it has arisen, persists, that is, to answer the question under what conditions dissonance ceases to be fleeting. If the above hypothesis is correct, then along with the dissonance there will also be forces aimed at reducing it. To answer our question, let's look at the various possible ways in which dissonance can be reduced.

Later in this chapter, we will look at this issue more formally, starting with an illustration of a heavy smoker who is confronted with information that smoking is harmful to health. Perhaps he read about it in a newspaper or magazine, heard from friends or from a doctor. This new knowledge will, of course, be at odds with the fact that he continues to smoke. If the dissonance reduction hypothesis is correct, what would be the behavior of our imaginary smoker in this case?

First, he can change his knowledge of his behavior by changing his behavior, that is, quit smoking, and then his idea of ​​his new behavior will be consistent (be in a state of consonance) with the knowledge that smoking is harmful to health. .

Secondly, he may try to change his "knowledge" about the effects of smoking, which sounds strange enough, but it captures the essence of what is happening well. He will either simply stop admitting that smoking is harmful to him, or he will try to find information that testifies to the benefits of smoking, thereby reducing the significance of information about its negative consequences. If this individual can change his system of knowledge in any of these ways, he can reduce or even completely eliminate the dissonance between what he knows and what he does.

Clearly enough, the smoker in the example above may find it difficult to change both his behavior and his beliefs. And it is precisely for this reason that dissonance, once it has arisen, is able to persist for a long time. There is no guarantee that a person will be able to reduce or eliminate the resulting dissonance. A hypothetical smoker may find that the process of quitting is too painful for him to endure. He may try to find specific facts or other people's opinions that support the view that smoking does not cause such great harm, but these searches may end in failure. Thus, he will be in a position where he will continue to smoke, at the same time well aware that smoking is harmful. If this happens, then his efforts to reduce dissonance will not stop.

There are certain areas of knowledge where the existence of significant dissonance is the most common thing. This can happen when two - or more - established beliefs or two values ​​that are relevant to the issue under consideration contradict each other. In other words, one cannot hold such an opinion or engage in such behavior that would not contradict at least one of the established beliefs. Mirdal, in the appendix to his classic book, demonstrates this quite clearly when he considers examples of behavior towards black Americans. Discussing the simultaneous existence of views about the individual in general, African Americans in general, specific groups of black Americans, and so on, Myrdal writes:

“A person or group whose assessment inconsistencies are publicly exposed will feel the need to reduce this inconsistency ... The need for logical consistency within the hierarchy of moral assessments ... in the degree of its intensity that is observed at the present time is a fairly new phenomenon. People of previous generations, who lived in conditions of less mobility, less intellectual communication and less public discussion of problems, witnessed conflicts of values ​​with each other to a much lesser extent.

While I do not agree with Myrdal in his assessment of the importance of public discussion in generating dissonance, I think this is a very good indication of a number of reasons why there is strong dissonance in this area.

The concepts we have covered are not entirely new; many similar to them have already been proposed before. Mention should be made of two works in which formulations are given that are closest to my own. Haider, in an as yet unpublished manuscript, discusses human relationships and the relationship between feelings. He's writing:

“Summing up our discussion of balanced or harmonious states, we can say that these states are characterized by two or more relationships that correspond to each other. If there is no balanced state, then there is a desire to establish it. There is either a tendency to change the feelings involved, or the relationship between the relevant elements will be balanced through action or cognitive reorganization. If change is not possible, then the state of imbalance will cause tension; balanced states will be more preferable than unbalanced ones” (Part II).

If we replace the word "balanced" with the word "consonant" and the word "imbalance" with the word "dissonance", Haider's statement above can be seen as describing the same process that we have been discussing so far.

Osgood and Tannenbaum recently published an article in which they also provided ideas for changing attitudes and attitudes. Considering the "principle of congruence," as they put it in their work, these authors write: "Changes in evaluation are always in the direction of increasing congruence with the existing system of reference."

That special kind of "incongruence", or cognitive dissonance, which they analyze in their work, occurs when a certain person or other source of information, which the subject evaluates positively, supports an opinion that the subject evaluates negatively (or, conversely, the source of information is evaluated negatively, and the opinion expressed by it is positively evaluated). The authors go on to show that under such circumstances there is a strong tendency to change either the assessment of the opinion or the assessment of the source of information in a direction that would reduce the dissonance. Thus, if the source of information was evaluated positively, and the opinion was evaluated negatively, the individual may begin to feel worse about the source of information or better about the subject of discussion. From the data given in the article, it becomes clear that the result in each particular case depends on what was initially more firmly fixed in the human knowledge system: an assessment of the source of information or an assessment of the problem. If his social attitudes towards the source of information are "polarized", then a change of opinion is more likely, and vice versa. By carefully measuring initial social attitudes in relation to the source of information and the judgment being expressed, as well as the degree of susceptibility of each of the attitudes to change before the dissonance was initiated, the authors of the study were able to fairly accurately predict the direction, and sometimes the extent of the coming changes in assessments.

What is important here is that there is a desire to establish consonant relationships in the cognitive system and a desire to avoid and reduce dissonance. Many researchers have noted this fact, although very few of them have formulated it as precisely and concisely as Haider, Osgood and Tannenbaum. The purpose of this book is to formulate the theory of dissonance in the most precise and generally applicable form possible, to show how it can be used to analyze a wide range of situations, and to present empirical data in support of this theory.

Definitions of concepts: dissonance and consonance

The remainder of this chapter will be mainly devoted to a more formal presentation of the theory of dissonance. I will try to formulate the provisions of the theory in the most precise and unambiguous terms. But since the ideas that underlie it have not yet taken shape, some fuzziness will be inevitable.

The terms "dissonance" and "consonance" define the type of relationship that exists between pairs of "elements". Therefore, before we determine the nature of these relations, it is necessary, as far as possible, to determine the elements themselves.

The elements refer to what we call cognition—what a person knows about himself, his behavior, and his environment. Therefore, these elements are knowledge. Some of them relate to knowledge about oneself: what this individual does, what he feels, what his needs and desires are, what he is in general, etc. Other elements of knowledge concern the world in which he lives: what is where, what leads to what, what brings pleasure to a person, and what causes suffering, what is insignificant, and what is important, etc.

Obviously, we have used the term “knowledge” so far in a very broad sense, including in relation to phenomena that are usually not included in the meaning of this word, for example, opinions. A person forms an opinion only if he believes that it is true and thus, purely psychologically, the opinion does not differ from "knowledge" as such. The same can be said about beliefs, values ​​or attitudes that, from our point of view, perform the same functions. This by no means means that these heterogeneous terms do not capture any important differences. Some of these differences will be listed below. But for the purposes of the formal definition, they are all "cognitive elements" and there can be relations of consonance and dissonance between pairs of these knowledge elements.

There are other questions related to the formal definition that we would like to get an answer to. For example, when is a "cognitive element" a single element, and when is it a group of elements? Is the knowledge that the winter in Minneapolis is very cold an element, or should it be treated as a group of elements made up of more specific knowledge? There is no answer to this question yet, but perhaps it does not need an answer. As will be shown in the following chapters on empirical data, whether or not this question is answered has no bearing on measurements.

Another important issue regarding cognitive elements is how they are formed and what determines their content. At this stage, we would like to emphasize that the most important factor that determines the content of cognitive elements is reality. The elements of knowledge are a reflection of reality. In general, they reflect reality, form its map. Reality may be physical, social or psychological, but in any case, knowledge more or less accurately reflects it. All this, of course, is not at all surprising. It would be unlikely that organisms could live and survive if the elements of knowledge were not a sufficiently accurate representation of reality. Indeed, when a person "breaks away from reality", it becomes very noticeable.

In other words, the elements of knowledge correspond for the most part to what a person actually does or feels, and to what actually exists in his environment. In the case of opinions, beliefs, and values, reality can be what others think or do; in other cases, the real may be what a person experiences or what others tell him.

But at this point it can be objected that people often have such cognitive elements that deviate markedly from reality, at least from what we ourselves perceive it. Thus, an important clarification is that the reality that affects the individual will exert pressure in the direction of bringing the cognitive elements in line with this reality. This does not mean, however, that existing cognitive elements will Always correspond to reality. Dissonance theory enables us to understand those situations where cognitive elements contradict reality. But it follows from it that if the cognitive elements do not correspond to a certain reality that affects the individual, he experiences some tension. And we must therefore be able to notice the manifestations of this tension. Such a hypothetical relationship between cognitive elements and reality is important from the point of view of measuring the degree of dissonance. We will return to this issue in the discussion of empirical data.

We can now move on to a discussion of the relationships that can exist between pairs of elements. There are three varieties of such relationships, namely: irrelevance, dissonance and consonance. It is in this order that we will discuss them.

Irrelevance

Two elements may simply have nothing in common. In other words, under such circumstances, when one cognitive element does not intersect with another element anywhere, these two elements are neutral, or irrelevant, in relation to each other.

For example, let's imagine a person who knows that a letter from New York to Paris, sent by regular sea mail, can take two weeks and that a dry, hot July is very good for a rich grain harvest in Iowa. These two elements of knowledge have nothing in common with each other, that is, they are irrelevant in relation to each other. Of course, it is difficult to say anything definite about such irrelevant relationships, except that they exist. The focus of our attention will be only those pairs of elements between which there are relations of consonance or dissonance.

In many cases, however, it is very difficult to decide a priori whether two elements are irrelevant. Often this is simply impossible to determine without taking into account the rest of the knowledge of the individual. Sometimes it may happen that due to certain behavior of a given person, previously irrelevant elements can become relevant in relation to each other. This could happen even in the above example. If a person living in Paris was speculating on the grain harvest in the United States, he would certainly want to know the weather forecast in Iowa and would hardly receive this information by sea mail.

Before we proceed to define and discuss the relations of consonance and dissonance that exist between the relevant elements, it would be useful to emphasize once again the special nature of those cognitive elements that are relevant to the individual's behavior. Such a "behavioral" element, being relevant to each of the two mutually neutral cognitive elements, can actually make them relevant.

Relevant relationships: dissonance and consonance

By this point, the reader will probably already have an intuition about dissonance. Two elements are dissonant with respect to each other if, for one reason or another, they do not correspond to one another. They may simply not coincide or contradict each other, they may not coincide because cultural or group norms require it, etc. Now we can move on to try to give a more formal definition of this concept.

Let's look at two cognitive elements that exist in humans and are relevant to each other. The definition of dissonance ignores the existence of all other cognitive elements that are relevant to either or both of the two elements being analyzed, and considers only those two elements in isolation. Two elements, taken in isolation from all the others, are in a dissonant relationship if one element implies a judgment opposite to the other. More formally: X and Y are in a dissonant relationship if non-X follows from Y. So, for example, if a person knows that only friends are in his environment, but nevertheless feels fear, this means that between these two cognitive elements there is a dissonant relationship. Or another example: if a person, having debts, acquires a new car, then the corresponding cognitive elements will be dissonant with respect to each other. Dissonance may exist due to experience or expectations, or because of what is considered appropriate or customary, or for any of a variety of other reasons.

Motives and desired consequences can also be factors in whether two elements are dissonant or not. For example, a person playing cards for money can continue to play and lose, knowing that his partners are professional players. This last knowledge may be dissonant with the awareness of his own behavior, namely that he continues to play. But in order to define these elements as dissonant in this example, it is necessary to accept with a sufficient degree of probability that the person is trying to win. If, for some strange reason, this person wants to lose, then this relationship would be consonantal.

It will be useful to give a number of examples where the dissonance between two cognitive elements arises for different reasons, that is, where the phrase “follows from”, which is part of the definition of dissonance, can be revealed in different ways.

1. Dissonance may arise due to logical incompatibility. If a person believes that in the near future people will land on the moon, but at the same time believes that people will not be able to make a spacecraft suitable for this purpose, then these two knowledges are dissonant with respect to each other. The negation of the content of one element follows from the content of another element on the basis of elementary logic, and the person himself in the course of reasoning can understand this.

2. Dissonance may arise due to cultural norms. If a person at a formal banquet holds a chicken leg in his hand, the knowledge of what he is doing is dissonant with respect to the knowledge that determines the rules of formal etiquette during a formal banquet. Dissonance arises for the simple reason that it is a given culture that determines what is consonant and what is not. In another culture, these two cognitive elements may not be dissonant at all.

3. Dissonance can arise when one specific opinion, by definition, is part of a more general opinion. Thus, if a person is a Democrat but votes for a Republican candidate in the current presidential election, the cognitive elements corresponding to these two sets of opinions are dissonant with each other, because the concept of "being a Democrat" by definition includes the need to support candidates from Democratic Party.

4. Dissonance can arise from past experiences. If a person is exposed to rain and sees that he remains dry, then these two elements of knowledge will be dissonant with respect to each other, since he knows from past experience that one cannot remain dry standing outside in the rain. If one could imagine a person who has never been exposed to rain, then the indicated knowledge would not be dissonant.

These examples are sufficient to illustrate how the definition of dissonance can be used empirically to decide whether two cognitive elements are dissonant or consonant. Of course, it is clear that in any of these situations there may be other elements of knowledge that may be in consonant relationship with any of the two elements in the pair in question. However, a relation between two elements is dissonant if, independently of the other elements, one of the elements of the pair does not (or is supposed not to) follow from the other.

The definition of the relationship of consonance and irrelevance follows from the definition of the relationship of dissonance. If in a pair of elements one of them follows from the value of the other element, then the relationship between them is consonant. If neither the negation nor the confirmation of the meaning of the second element of a pair follows from the first element, then the relation between them is irrelevant.

The definitions of the concepts of dissonance and consonance, however, do not provide a sufficient basis for making measurements. If we seek an empirical test of the theory of dissonance, it is necessary first of all to ensure an unmistakable identification of the phenomena of dissonance and consonance. Trying to get a complete list of all cognitive elements is a hopeless undertaking, and even if such a list were available, in some cases it would be difficult or impossible to determine a priori which of the three possible types of connections takes place in a given case. However, in many cases the a priori definition of dissonance is clear and precise. (Recall also that two cognitive elements can be dissonant for a person living in one culture but not another, and also depending on his past experience.) We will return to the problem of measurement in more detail in the chapters where we discuss empirical data.

Amount of dissonance

All dissonant relationships, of course, have different intensities. It is necessary to distinguish between the degrees of dissonance that arises and to describe the factors that determine the strength of the dissonant relationship. We first briefly discuss some of the possible determinants of the amount of dissonance that occurs between two elements, and then turn to a consideration of the overall intensity of dissonance that can exist between two systems of elements.

One obvious factor that determines the amount of dissonance has to do with the characteristics of those elements between which the dissonant relationship occurs. If two cognitive elements are dissonant with respect to each other, then the amount of dissonance will be directly proportional to the importance of these elements. The more significant the elements are for the individual, the more they are of value to him, the greater will be the degree of dissonance between them. So, for example, if a person gives ten cents to a beggar, although he sees that this beggar is unlikely to really need money, the dissonance that arises between these two elements is rather weak. Neither of these two cognitive elements is important enough for a given individual and is not associated with important consequences. A much greater dissonance arises, for example, if a student does not prepare for an important exam, although he knows that his level of knowledge is certainly insufficient to pass it successfully. In this case, elements that are dissonant with respect to each other are much more important to a person, and accordingly the amount of dissonance will be much greater.

With a fair degree of certainty, we can assume that in life it is very rare to find any system of cognitive elements in which dissonance is completely absent. For almost any action a person might take or any feeling they might experience, there is sure to be at least one cognitive element that is in dissonance with this "behavioral" element. Even for perfectly trivial knowledge, such as that one is going for a walk on a Sunday afternoon, there are very likely to be some dissonant elements. A person who goes out for a walk may be aware that there is housework waiting for him at home, or that it is going to rain, and so on. In short, there are so many other cognitive elements that are relevant to any given element that some degree of dissonance is common.

Let us now consider in full the entire context of dissonant and consonant relations into which a single cognitive element enters. Assuming for a time for operational purposes that all elements relevant to the cognitive element in question are equally important, we can say that the total amount of dissonance between a given element and the individual's knowledge system as a whole will directly depend on the proportion of those relevant elements that are dissonant with respect to the element under consideration. Thus, if the vast majority of relevant elements are consonant with, say, a behavioral element of a cognitive system, then there will be little dissonance with that behavioral element.

If the proportion of elements consonant with respect to the considered behavioral element is much smaller than the proportion of dissonant elements, then the degree of dissonance will be much higher. Of course, the total amount of dissonance will also depend on the significance or value of those relevant elements that have a consonant or dissonant relationship with the element in question.

The above rule can be easily generalized and used to estimate the amount of dissonance that can exist between two groups of cognitive elements. This value depends on the nature of the prevailing type of relationship (dissonant or consonant) and, of course, on the significance of specific elements.

The amount of dissonance that occurs is a very important variable in determining the intensity of the desire to reduce dissonance. Since we will repeatedly deal with the definition of the degree of dissonance when considering empirical data, it will be useful to summarize our analysis regarding the definition of the magnitude of dissonance. So:

1. If two cognitive elements are relevant to each other, then the nature of the relationship between them is either dissonant or consonant.

2. The amount of dissonance (or consonance) increases as the importance and value of the elements involved in this relation grows.

3. The total amount of dissonance that exists between two groups of cognitive elements directly depends on the weighted proportion of dissonant relations among the relevant relations between the elements of the two groups. The term "weighted share" is used here because each relevant relation would be evaluated depending on the significance of the elements included in it.

Dissonance reduction

The existence of dissonance gives rise to a desire to reduce or completely eliminate dissonance. The intensity of this striving depends on the magnitude of the dissonance. In other words, dissonance operates in exactly the same way as motive, need, or tension. The presence of dissonance leads to actions aimed at reducing it, just as, for example, the feeling of hunger leads to actions aimed at eliminating it.

Also, by analogy with motive, the greater the amount of dissonance, the greater will be the intensity of the action aimed at reducing dissonance, and the more pronounced will be the tendency to avoid any situations that could increase the degree of dissonance.

In order to concretize our reasoning as to how the desire to reduce dissonance can manifest itself, it is necessary to analyze the possible ways in which the resulting dissonance can be reduced or eliminated. In general, if dissonance occurs between two elements, then that dissonance can be eliminated by changing one of those elements. What matters is how these changes can be made. There are many possible ways, which depend on the type of cognitive elements involved and the general context of knowledge that the person has in the situation in question.

Changing Behavioral Cognitives

When dissonance arises between an environmental knowledge cognition and a behavioral cognition, the dissonance can, of course, be eliminated by changing the behavioral cognition so that it becomes consonant with the environmental cognition. The simplest and easiest way to achieve this is to change the action or feeling to which the behavior refers. Since, as we have seen, knowledge is a reflection of reality, if the behavior of an organism changes, then the corresponding cognitive elements will change in a similar way. This method of reducing or eliminating dissonance is very common. Our behavior and feelings often change in response to new information. If a person went out of town for a picnic and noticed that it was starting to rain, he could simply return home. There are quite a few people who gave up tobacco permanently, once they found out that it is very unhealthy.

However, it is not always possible to eliminate dissonance or even significantly reduce it by changing the corresponding action or feeling. Behavior change may be too difficult, or the change itself, by removing one dissonance, may in turn create a whole host of new ones. These issues will be discussed in more detail below.

Changing cognitive elements that reflect the environment

Just as it is possible to change behavioral cognitions by changing the behavior they reflect, it is sometimes possible to change cognitive elements reflecting the environment, by changing the situation corresponding to them. Of course, this process is more difficult than behavior change, for the simple reason that it requires a sufficient degree of control over the environment, which is quite rare.

Changing the environment to reduce dissonance is much easier when the dissonance is related to the social environment than when it is related to the physical environment. To illustrate this difference, let me give you a joking example. Imagine a person who has a habit of pacing back and forth in the living room of his house. For some unknown reason, he always steps over a certain area of ​​the floor. The cognitive element corresponding to this habit is undoubtedly discordant with his knowledge that this area of ​​the floor is as even and strong as the other areas, and does not differ at all from the rest of the floor. If one evening, when his wife is not at home, he makes a hole in this section of the floor, he will completely eliminate the dissonance. The knowledge that there is a hole in the floor will be in excellent consonance with the fact that he is constantly stepping over the place where it is located. In short, it will change the cognition by effectively changing the environment to eliminate dissonance.

Whenever a person has enough control over the environment, he can use this method of reducing dissonance. For example, if an individual is usually hostile towards other people, he may surround himself with people who provoke hostility. His attitudes towards the people with whom he is in contact will thus be consonant cognitive elements reflecting his hostile behavior. However, the ability to manipulate the environment is quite limited, so other ways to reduce dissonance are much more common.

If a cognitive element changes, but some reality that it reflects in the mind of the individual remains unchanged, then some means of ignoring the real situation or counteracting it must come into play. Sometimes this is almost impossible, except in extreme cases when it comes to psychosis. If a person is caught in the rain and gets wet from head to toe, he will almost certainly be aware that it is pouring rain, no matter how strong his desire to ignore this fact may be. In other cases, it is relatively easy to change a cognitive element without actually changing anything. For example, a person can change his mind about a certain political figure, even if the behavior of this figure and the political situation as a whole remain unchanged. Usually, for this, it is enough for a person to find people who will agree with him and will support his new opinion. In general, shaping social reality by obtaining approval and support from other people is one of the main ways in which knowledge can be changed when the need arises. It is easy to see that in cases where such social support is needed, the presence of dissonance and, as a result, the resulting tension and the desire to change the cognitive element lead to different social processes. This will be discussed in detail in chapters 8-10, which are devoted to the analysis of manifestations of the desire to reduce dissonance in large and small social groups.

Adding new cognitive elements

So, we have established that in order to completely eliminate dissonance, it is necessary to change some cognitive elements. It is clear that this is not always possible. But even if the dissonance cannot be completely eliminated, it can always be reduced by adding new cognitive elements to the individual's knowledge system.

For example, if there is dissonance between cognitions about the harms of smoking and the fact that a person continues to smoke, then the overall dissonance can be reduced by adding new cognitions that are consistent with smoking. In the presence of such dissonance, a person can be expected to actively search for new information that could reduce the overall dissonance. At the same time, he will avoid information that can increase the existing dissonance. Thus, in continuation of our example, a smoker can seek and read voraciously any material that questions the results of studies demonstrating the harm of smoking. At the same time, he will avoid materials that support the conclusions of these studies. If, however, a collision with information about the dangers of smoking still cannot be avoided, then in the process of reading he will be skeptical.

The possibilities of adding new elements to the knowledge system that reduce the existing dissonance are very high. Our smoker, for example, can refer to the statistics of accidents in car accidents. Having concluded that the harm of smoking is incomparable with the danger to which he is exposed by driving, the individual reduces the dissonance somewhat by reducing significance cognitive elements that come into conflict.

The above reasoning points to the possibility of reducing dissonance by changing the proportion of dissonant and consonant relations of a cognitive element. Another possible way is to add a new cognitive element to the knowledge system, which in a certain sense “reconciles” two elements that are in a dissonant relation to each other. To illustrate this, I will give an example of one study. Spiro, in his article, describes certain aspects of the Ifaluk belief system, a non-literate society. For our purposes, the following features of this system are important:

1. The Ifaluk have a strong belief that all people are good. That is, all people not only have to be kind, but really are.

2. In the course of their maturation, the children of this tribe go through a period when, for one reason or another, their behavior is characterized by manifestations of open aggression, hostility and a desire for destruction.

Obviously, the belief that all people are good is in stark contrast to the behavior of children in this culture. This dissonance can be reduced in many ways. One of them is to change your belief in the essence of human nature, or else to transform it in such a way that it applies only to adults. Another possible way is to change the content of the idea of ​​kindness in such a way that the manifestations of aggression in adolescents can be considered good. However, ifaluk had a different way of reducing dissonance. An element was introduced into the belief system that reduced the degree of dissonance by reconciling the above belief in human kindness and the facts of hostility in children. Namely, in addition to believing in the good beginning of man: the Ifaluks were convinced of the existence of evil spirits that inhabit people and make them do bad deeds.

As a result of the inclusion of this element in the belief system, knowledge about the aggressive behavior of children no longer contradicted the belief that all people are kind. It is not the children who behave aggressively, but the evil spirits that have inhabited them. From the point of view of psychology, this is a very effective way to reduce dissonance, since it is associated with a change in the belief system, institutionalization at the cultural level. Less effective methods simply would not have spread so widely and would not have become generally accepted.

Before moving on, I want to re-emphasize that having a desire to reduce dissonance, or even an activity aimed at doing so, does not at all guarantee that dissonance will decrease. The person may not be able to find the social support needed to change the cognitive element, or be unable to find new elements that reduce the degree of dissonance. It is also quite probable that the desire to reduce dissonance may eventually lead to its increase. It depends on what the person is facing at the moment when he is trying to reduce the dissonance. It is important here that in the presence of dissonance, attempts reduce it. If these attempts are unsuccessful, then symptoms of psychological discomfort begin to appear. And the more palpable and significant the dissonance is, the more clearly and openly this discomfort manifests itself.

Resistance to dissonance reduction

Since dissonance can be reduced or completely eliminated by changing one or more cognitive elements, it is necessary to consider how resistant these elements are to change. Whether any element changes, and if so which one, of course, depends in part on the degree of resistance inherent in the elements. Of course, if no cognitive elements of the individual's knowledge system offered resistance to change, then there would be no reason for any long-term dissonance to arise. A momentary dissonance might arise, but if the cognitive elements of a given system do not resist change, then the dissonance will be immediately eliminated. Consider the main sources of resistance to dissonance reduction. They will differ for two classes of cognitive elements - reflecting the behavior of the subject or the environment.

Resistance to Change by Behavioral Cognitives

The first and most important source of resistance to change any cognitive element is its connection with reality. If a person sees that the grass is green, it is very difficult for him to think that it is not. If a person is walking down the street, it will be difficult for him not to perceive this fact. When this strong, sometimes overwhelming connection with reality is taken into account, the problem of changing a behavioral cognitive element becomes a problem of changing the behavior that is associated with this element. Therefore, the resistance to change in a cognitive element is identical to the resistance to change in behavior, which is reflected by this element, unless, of course, the person has lost touch with reality.

Of course, many behaviors have little or no resistance to change. We are constantly changing many of our actions and feelings to suit the changing situation. If the street we usually drive to work closes for repairs, it's usually not difficult to change our behavior and take a detour to work. What, then, are the circumstances that make it difficult to change the actions of the individual?

1. Such changes may be painful or involve some kind of loss. For example, a person has spent a large amount of money to buy a house. If now he wants to change something, for example, he did not like the house or the neighbors, then he must be prepared for the inconvenience associated with the move, and possible financial losses if the house is sold. A person who would like to quit smoking will have to endure the discomfort and pain associated with quitting nicotine. It is clear that in such circumstances there will be some resistance to change. The magnitude of this resistance will depend on the magnitude of the discomfort to come and the loss to be endured.

2. Behavior that has become unacceptable for an individual from one point of view may remain quite satisfactory from another. A person may continue to go to the same restaurant for lunch every day, even though the food there has become bad if his friends always eat there. Or, for example, a person who is powerful and harsh towards his children will find it difficult to refuse the opportunity to command, even if for one reason or another he would want to change his behavior. In such cases, the amount of resistance to change will directly depend on the amount of satisfaction received from the existing form of behavior.

3. It may turn out that it is simply impossible to make changes. It would be a mistake to believe that a person can make any change in his behavior, if only he wants it badly enough. Changes may not be possible for a number of reasons. Some forms of behavior, especially emotional reactions, are not subject to voluntary control. For example, a person may experience a strong fear reaction that they are unable to cope with. It can also be difficult to implement any kind of behavior change simply because the new form is not part of the person's behavioral repertoire. A father may not be able to change his behavior towards his children simply because he knows no other way of behaving. The third circumstance that makes change impossible is the irreversible nature of some actions. If, for example, a person sold his house, but then decided to return it back, and the new owner refuses to sell the house, then nothing can be done. The action has been completed and is irreversible. But in a situation where changing behavior is impossible, it cannot be argued that the resistance to changing the corresponding cognitive element is infinitely large. The resistance to change possessed by the cognitive element, of course, cannot be greater than the influence of reality.

Resistance to change in cognitive elements that reflect the environment

Here, as in the case of behavioral cognitive elements, the main source of resistance to change lies in the connection of these elements with reality. In the case of behavioral cognitive elements, the resistance to changing them is related to the resistance to changing the corresponding reality, that is, behavior. When we are dealing with environmental elements, the situation is somewhat different. When there is a clear and definite reality corresponding to some cognitive element, the possibilities of changing it are practically zero. If, for example, a certain person wanted to change his knowledge about the location of a certain building that he sees every day, he would hardly succeed.

However, the reality correlated with one or another cognitive element is in many cases not so clear and unambiguous. When an individual is dealing with a social reality, that is, one that is based on agreements with other people, the resistance to change will depend on how difficult it will be for him to find other people who support his new opinion.

There is another source of resistance to change in cognitive elements, both behavioral and environmental. However, we have postponed discussion of it until now, because it generates resistance to change precisely in environmental cognitive elements to a greater extent. This source is that the element to be replaced is closely related to many other elements. To the extent that this element is consonant with a multitude of other elements, and to the extent that its replacement would replace consonances with dissonances, the element in question will resist change.

The above discussion is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the causes of resistance to change. It is more of an analysis that is meant to aid operationalization rather than conceptualization. Whatever kind of dissonance we are dealing with, the most important factor in trying to eliminate it by changing the cognitive elements affected by it is the resulting resistance to change, the source of this resistance is of little importance.

Limits to increasing dissonance

The maximum dissonance that can exist between any two elements is determined by the amount of resistance to change of the least stable element. As soon as the degree of dissonance reaches its maximum value, the least persistent cognitive element will change, thereby eliminating the dissonance.

This does not mean that the degree of dissonance will often approach this maximum possible value. When a strong dissonance arises, the magnitude of which, nevertheless, will still be less than the magnitude of the resistance to change of the elements involved, the reduction of this dissonance in the knowledge system as a whole may well be achieved by adding new cognitive elements. Thus, even in the presence of very strong resistance to change, the overall dissonance in the system can be kept at a fairly low level.

Consider, as an example, a person who spent a significant amount of money on the purchase of a new expensive car. Imagine that after making this purchase, he discovers that something is wrong with the car and that it will be very expensive to repair it. Moreover, it turns out that the operation of this model is much more expensive than the operation of other cars, and on top of that, his friends claim that this car is simply ugly. If the degree of dissonance becomes large enough, that is, correlated with the amount of resistance to change in the least stable element (which in this situation is most likely to be a behavioral element), then this person can eventually sell the car, despite all the inconvenience and financial losses associated with this. . Thus, the dissonance would not exceed the amount of resistance that arises when a change in behavior is necessary, that is, a decision to sell a car.

Now let's consider a situation where the amount of dissonance for a person who bought a new car would be large enough, but still less than the maximum possible dissonance (that is, less than the amount of resistance to change inherent in the least change-resistant cognitive element). None of the existing cognitive elements would therefore change, but the individual could keep the degree of general dissonance sufficiently low by adding new knowledge that is consonant with the fact of owning a new car. He might conclude that the power and performance of a car are more important than its economy and design. He would start to drive faster than usual, and he would be completely convinced that the ability to develop high speed is an important characteristic of the car. With the help of this and other similar knowledge, this individual might well succeed in keeping the dissonance at a negligible level.

It is also possible that attempts to add new consonant cognitive elements to the existing knowledge system will fail and at the same time the financial situation of the hero of our example will develop in such a way that he will not be able to sell the car. However, the possibility of reducing the degree of dissonance by adding new cognitive elements still remains, but these elements will be of a different kind. A person may admit to himself and others that buying this car was a mistake and that if he had to buy a car again, he would have chosen a different model. This process of psychologically separating yourself from the act you have done can significantly reduce dissonance. Sometimes, however, resistance to such changes can be very strong. The maximum degree of dissonance that can arise in such circumstances will depend on how difficult it is for a particular person to agree that the act he committed was thoughtless or stupid.

avoidance of dissonance

So far, our discussion has been devoted to the problems associated with the tendency to reduce or eliminate dissonance. Under certain circumstances, there is also a pronounced desire to avoid increasing dissonance or to prevent its occurrence. Let's analyze such situations and the possible manifestations of the tendency to avoid increasing dissonance.

This tendency arises as a natural consequence of the appearance of dissonance. It is especially significant if, in order to reduce dissonance, it is necessary to find a way to replace an existing cognitive element with another one or to include a new cognitive element in the system. In any of these cases, the search for social support or new information must be extremely selective. The person will readily enter into a conversation with someone who he believes will approve of the content of the new cognitive element, and is likely to avoid discussing the topic with those who will support the element he is trying to change. The person will be open to sources of information that would contribute to the addition of consonant elements, and will avoid sources of information that increase dissonance.

If the dissonance is insignificant or absent, we most likely will not encounter this kind of selectivity in the search for and perception of information. In the absence of dissonance, there will be no motivation to look for sources of support or additional information. However, there are also exceptions to this rule. Past experience can cause fear in the individual and, therefore, give rise to the desire to avoid situations leading to the emergence of dissonance. In this case, one can expect cautious behavior of the individual.

Fear of dissonance can lead to reluctance to act. We take many actions and do many things that are very difficult to change. Consequently, a situation is very likely in which the dissonance, once having arisen, will not only not decrease, but, on the contrary, will increase. Avoiding dissonance can lead to a reluctance to take action and ultimately a reluctance to take responsibility for one's actions. When inaction or refusal to take this or that decision is impossible, the commission of actions may be accompanied by their cognitive denial. So, for example, a person who has bought a new car and is afraid of the appearance of dissonance may immediately after making a purchase declare that he realized the wrongness of his act. This fear of dissonance is relatively rare, but it is possible. Individual differences in fear of dissonance and in the ability to eliminate dissonance effectively are important in determining the likelihood of implementing this dissonance avoidance technique. The purely methodological problem is to be able to characterize separately the situation and the personality of a person in cases where such a priori defensive behavior will be used.

Conclusion

The main essence of the theory of dissonance that we have described is quite simple and, in brief, is as follows:

1. Cognitive elements may be in relation to dissonance, or inconsistency, among themselves.

2. The existence of dissonance causes a desire to reduce it and try to avoid its further increase.

3. Manifestations of such a desire consist in changing behavior, changing existing knowledge and biased search for new information and new opinions about the judgment or object that gave rise to dissonance.

Although the general meaning of the theory of dissonance is quite simple, nevertheless, many consequences follow from it and it can be applied to the analysis of a large number of situations that at first glance have nothing in common with each other. Subsequent chapters of the book will be devoted to a detailed analysis of these specific implications of dissonance theory and to a description of the relevant empirical evidence.

The main hypotheses of the theory

1. due to logical inconsistency;
2. "because of cultural practices";
3. in the event that an individual opinion is part of a broader opinion;
4. due to the inconsistency of past experience with the present situation.

Therefore, people are ready to justify their delusions: a person who has committed a misconduct or a mistake tends to justify himself in his thoughts, gradually shifting his beliefs about what happened in the direction that what happened was actually not so terrible. In this way the individual "regulates" his thinking in order to reduce conflict within himself.

Degree of dissonance

In various situations that arise in everyday life, dissonance can increase or decrease - it all depends on the problem that confronts the person.

Thus, the degree of dissonance will be minimal if, for example, a person gives money to a beggar on the street, who (apparently) does not really need alms. On the contrary, the degree of dissonance will increase many times over if a person faces a serious exam, but he does not try to prepare for it.

Dissonance can (and does) arise in any situation where a person has to make a choice. Moreover, the degree of dissonance will grow depending on how important this choice is for the individual.

Reducing dissonance

Prevention and avoidance of dissonance

In some cases, an individual can prevent the appearance of dissonance and, as a result, internal discomfort by trying to avoid any negative information regarding his problem. If the dissonance has already arisen, then the individual can avoid reinforcing it by adding one or more cognitive elements "to the cognitive schema" instead of the existing negative element (which generates the dissonance). Thus, the individual will be interested in finding such information that would approve his choice (his decision) and, in the end, would weaken or completely eliminate dissonance, while avoiding sources that will increase it. However, often such behavior of an individual can lead to negative consequences: a person may experience fear of dissonance or prejudice, which is a dangerous factor affecting the individual's worldview.

It is quite understandable that it is much easier for a person to agree with the existing state of affairs, adjusting his internal attitudes according to the current situation, instead of continuing to suffer from the question of whether he did the right thing. Often dissonance arises as a consequence of making important decisions. The choice of two equally tempting alternatives is not easy for a person, however, having finally made this choice, a person often begins to feel “dissonant cognitions”, that is, the positive aspects of the option that he refused, and the not very positive features of the one with than agreed. In order to suppress (weaken) dissonance, a person tries with all his might to exaggerate the significance of his decision, while at the same time downplaying the importance of the rejected one. As a consequence, the other alternative loses all appeal in his eyes.

Literature

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010 .

See what "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" is in other dictionaries:

cognitive dissonance theory- Etymology. Comes from the Greek. theory research, engl. cognition knowledge and dissonance inconsistency. Author. L. Festinger. Category. Cognitive theory explaining the features of motivational processes. Specificity. It logically...

- (from English cognition, knowledge, dissonance, inconsistency) a social psychological theory created by the American psychologist L. Festinger, in which logically contradictory knowledge about the same subject is assigned the status of motivation, ... ... Psychological Dictionary

Theory of cognitive dissonance- - L. Festinger's theory of change and formation of attitudes. * * * A socio-psychological theory (L. Festinger), which explains the illogical behavior of a person in situations where there is conflicting information about one object, subject, or person. From… … Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

THE THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE- a psychological theory that connects the well-being of a person and his behavior with the state of the system of knowledge he has. T.c.d. claims that contradictions in a person's knowledge give rise to a feeling of discomfort and a desire at all costs ... Glossary of terms for psychological counseling

See the theory of cognitive dissonance Psychological Dictionary. THEM. Kondakov. 2000... Great Psychological Encyclopedia

Cognitive dissonance theory- (lat. cognitio cognition and dissonans out of tune sounding) one of the "correspondence theories" app. social psychology, put forward by a student of K. Levin L. Festinger (1957), to the edge explains the influence on human O. and the behavior of the cognitive system ... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY- Leon Festinger's theory of attitude change, based on the notion that we strive to bring our attitudes into line with each other in order to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Also called dissonance theory... Explanatory Dictionary of Psychology

Cognitive dissonance theory- (lat. cognitio - knowledge). A theory widespread in Western social psychology that considers interpersonal conflicts as an inevitability, an integral part of social life, the interaction of individuals and groups. It is believed that the conflict ... ... Explanatory Dictionary of Psychiatric Terms

Cognitive dissonance theory- [lat. cognitio cognition and lat. dissonans discordantly sounding] one of the concepts of Western social psychology, put forward by the American psychologist L. Festinger (1957) and explaining the impact on human behavior of the system of cognitive ... ... Psychological lexicon

Cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by a person who is forced to hold two or more conflicting ideas in his field of vision. Cognitive dissonance also occurs when a person is confronted with new information that contradicts their knowledge, beliefs, or values.

Who proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance

The term "cognitive dissonance" and the corresponding theory were proposed by the American social psychologist Leon Festinger, a student of Kurt Lewin, back in 1957. It was this theory that brought the scientist universal recognition, and two years after its publication, Festinger was awarded the "Outstanding Contribution to Science" award established by the American Psychological Association.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was proposed by a psychologist after incredible rumors about the consequences of earthquakes spread in several American states. Analyzing the reasons for the widespread belief in these rumors, Festinger suggested that a person, due to some of his internal characteristics, seeks to achieve a balance between his knowledge and motives, on the one hand, and information coming from outside, on the other. This is how Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance was born.

Introduction to dissonance theory

A person tries to achieve inner harmony and coherence. This was known long before the advent of Festinger's theory - many scientists and philosophers spoke about this. Leon Festinger, on the other hand, pointed to the desire of any person to put their beliefs and views in order, because inconsistent ideas bring disharmony, internal chaos.

In his scientific works, the American psychologist noted that cognitive dissonance is a special state, a kind of forerunner of the activity that a person will try to develop in order to quickly get rid of unpleasant sensations. This is about the same as searching for food when a person is hungry.

The degree of manifestation of cognitive dissonance can be different. Of great importance in this case is how strong the existing beliefs of a person are, as well as the degree of their inconsistency with new knowledge. Also important is the credibility of the source from which information is received, which is recognized by a person as contradictory.

What happens if a contradiction arises in a person's system of knowledge and beliefs?

How does a person behave in a state of cognitive dissonance?

Sometimes a person who feels dissonance realizes that there is a discrepancy between his knowledge and behavior, but at the same time refuses to change anything. However, much more often a person tries to rationalize the contradiction. For example, he can drink liters of coffee and at the same time realize that it is harmful to his health. And he will find excuses for himself: the coffee is delicious, and it makes you want to sleep less, and after a few cups your working capacity increases. As a result, he convinces himself that everything is fine. There is no contradiction.

However, if the coffee lover's heart begins to play pranks, his beliefs will no longer be consistent. Along with health problems will come psychological discomfort. There is a contradiction in beliefs, which soon develops into cognitive dissonance. This state encourages a person to make some changes, in our case, to reduce the amount of coffee consumed.

What other situations cause dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance is a condition that can manifest itself in completely different situations. For example, when needed:

• explain strange, mixed feelings;
• minimize regrets about making the wrong choice;
• justify behavior that is inconsistent with existing views;
• change your mind about the other person;
• to confirm an already existing belief, when in a situation of contradiction a person tries to find references and sources that testify in favor of the correctness of his opinion.

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. Key points

Along with the concept of cognitive dissonance, Festinger introduced the category of consonance. By consonance, he understood the state in which beliefs, ideas and new knowledge of a person are consistent with each other.

So, the theory of dissonance looked like this.

Position 1. The state of cognitive dissonance is a strong motivation. So, if a person experiences a contradiction, he will try to reduce its degree and, if possible, move to consonance.

Statement 2. A person in a state of cognitive dissonance will try to avoid new knowledge or beliefs, the adoption of which may mean an increase in the degree of dissonance.

How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance

In order to reduce or minimize the state of cognitive dissonance, there are three main strategies.

1. Focus on more favorable beliefs. For example, a student is not preparing for an important test, which is only two days away. At the same time, he perfectly understands that his knowledge is not enough for the “passed” mark, but he tells himself that there is still enough time before the retake, and he will definitely have time to learn everything.
2. Reduce the importance of conflicting beliefs. For example, a person learns that a sedentary lifestyle reduces life expectancy. However, he works in an office and cannot afford to move more during the day. And then the person tells himself that a healthy diet can compensate for a forced sedentary lifestyle.
3. Change conflicting beliefs so that they are consistent with each other. This strategy is considered one of the most effective, but it is quite difficult to successfully implement it. The hardest thing is when beliefs are already firmly rooted in consciousness.

Has the theory of cognitive dissonance found any practical application? Undoubtedly.

Practical application of the theory of cognitive dissonance

Festinger's cognitive dissonance not only explains some inappropriate human behavior. It also found a practical application in many areas of human life.

For example, a teacher can stimulate students' desire to learn something new by causing them cognitive dissonance. To do this, he can challenge the point of view of one or more of his students and invite them to conduct practical experiments. This gives students motivation to learn.

The theory of cognitive dissonance is often used by marketers: entire sales strategies are built on its provisions. For example, the advertising slogan of a well-known Western company “You take care of yourself and your family. Why not choose the best? causes cognitive dissonance in the buyer, coupled with guilt that he has enough money and at the same time does not buy the best products for his loved ones.

Promotion of a healthy lifestyle is sometimes also built using the theory of cognitive dissonance. For example, shocking data on the number of deaths from AIDS at one time forced many to choose safe sex and start buying condoms.

In addition, cognitive dissonance is often caused by practicing psychologists in their clients. Why are they doing that? To show that some of the client's beliefs do not correspond to reality and greatly interfere with his life.

Conclusion

Cognitive dissonance very often becomes a companion of a person's life. Its significance is great, although very often it remains unconscious. However, dissonance can be useful: it accompanies a situation of choice and can become an impetus for a person to act or make serious changes.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

Conclusion

Introduction

Leon Festinger formulated the theory of cognitive dissonance. He says that the occurrence of dissonance motivates the individual to reduce the degree of dissonance and, if possible, achieve consonance. In addition to this desire to reduce dissonance, the individual seeks to avoid situations and information that may lead to an increase in the degree of dissonance.

The author understands cognitive dissonance as a condition that leads to actions aimed at reducing it. Festinger says that dissonance can arise in situations where a person becomes an eyewitness to some unpredictable events or when he learns new information.

According to Festinger, positive emotions arise only when there is no cognitive dissonance between the outcome of the situation and how this outcome was represented in the mind of the individual, and negative or negative emotions arise when there is cognitive dissonance ...

1. Fundamentals of the theory of cognitive dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance, created in 1957, was for its author a continuation of the development of the idea of ​​"social comparison", which Festinger had dealt with much earlier. In this area, Festinger acts as a student and follower of Levin. The initial concept for it is the concept of need, and a special type of needs is analyzed, namely, "the need to evaluate oneself" ("evaluative need"), i.e. the desire to evaluate one's opinions and abilities, first of all, (subsequently, a follower of Festinger, Schechter, extended the principle of comparison also to the assessment of emotions). Along the way, Festinger notes that the minimum dissimilarity of opinions leads to conformism - a person easily changes an opinion that is slightly different from others in order to bring his opinion closer to the opinion of the group.

At the same time, unlike other theories of correspondence, Festinger's theory nowhere focuses specifically on social behavior, and, moreover, its fate has developed more dramatically than the fate of any other theory of correspondence. The theory of cognitive dissonance has stimulated much more research, and in this sense its popularity is much higher than others, but at the same time, the opposition to it turned out to be much stronger. It is also important to note that the theory of cognitive dissonance has a very solid "literature": firstly, it is presented in great detail by the author himself in his 1957 work "The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" and, secondly, it received a huge response in the works of many representatives of the Western social psychology, so that it is possible, perhaps, to record a special "literature on the theory of dissonance", which is a critical analysis of this theory, often footnotes to it, and sometimes very sharp polemics with it

Festinger himself begins the exposition of his theory with the following reasoning: it is noticed that people strive for some consistency as a desired internal state. If a contradiction arises between what a person knows and what he does, then this contradiction is sought to be somehow explained and, most likely, presented as a non-contradiction in order to again achieve a state of internal cognitive consistency. Further, Festinger proposes to replace the terms - "contradiction" with "dissonance", and "consistency" with "consonance", since this last pair of terms seems to him more "neutral", and now formulate the main provisions of the theory.

It can be summed up in three main points:

1) dissonance may occur between cognitive elements;

2) the existence of dissonance causes a desire to reduce it or prevent its growth;

3) the manifestation of this desire includes: either a change in behavior, or a change in knowledge, or a cautious attitude to new information.

As an example, the example of a smoker, which has already become a household name, is usually given: a person smokes, but at the same time he knows that smoking is harmful; he has a dissonance, out of which there are three ways:

1) change behavior, i.e. quit smoking;

2) to change knowledge, in this case - to convince oneself that all arguments, articles about the dangers of smoking are at least unreliable, exaggerate the danger;

3) be wary of new information about the harms of smoking, i.e. simply ignore her.

Before further expounding the content of Festinger's theory, it is necessary to more precisely define the terms introduced. Firstly, the main units in the theory of dissonance are "cognitive elements", which, we recall, were defined by the author of the theory as "any knowledge, opinion, belief about the environment, someone, someone's behavior or oneself."

Secondly, among all these cognitive elements, or "cognitions", it is necessary to distinguish between two types: those related to behavior (it does not matter to whom) and those related to the environment. An example of the first is "I'm going on a picnic today", an example of the second is "it's raining". two different interpretations of this issue continue to coexist.

Thirdly, in the theory of dissonance, any relationship between cognitive elements is not considered, because in principle there can be three of them:

1) the absolute lack of connection between them, their irrelevance to each other (for example, the knowledge that it never snows in Florida, and that some planes fly in excess of the speed of sound);

2) consonance relations;

3) relations of dissonance.

In theory, only the last two types of relations between cognitive elements are considered, and, naturally, the main attention is paid to dissonant relations. Here is Festinger's own formulation of what a dissonant relationship is: "Two elements X and Y are in a dissonant relationship if, considered in isolation, the negation of one follows from the other, namely non-X follows from Y." Example: A person is in debt (Y) but buys a new, expensive car (X). Here, dissonant relations arise, since from Y (the fact that a person is a debtor) some appropriate action X would have to follow, and then consonance would be observed. In the above case, it follows from the action that is different from the "reasonable" option ("not-X"), i.e. the purchase of an expensive car that does not correspond to the circumstances, and therefore dissonance arises.

2. Causes and magnitude of dissonance

The category of "following" is the category of logic; in modern systems of mathematical logic there is a special symbolic designation of following - there the expression "should" has a very definite logical meaning. Festinger introduces a different interpretation of the following, which includes not only a logical, but also a psychological understanding of this relationship.

Explaining what the expression "follows from" means in his formula, Festinger suggests four sources for the possible occurrence of dissonance:

1) from logical inconsistency, i.e. when "following 'not-X' from 'Y'" is proof of the purely logical inconsistency of two judgments as cognitive elements.

2) from the inconsistency of cognitive elements with cultural patterns, or, in other words, with norms.

3) from the inconsistency of a given cognitive element with some wider system of ideas.

4) out of inconsistency with past experience.

All three of the last cases of dissonance are based on a different nature of "non-following" than is customary in logic.

3. Ways to reduce dissonance

1) Changing the behavioral elements of the cognitive structure.

2) Changing the cognitive elements related to the environment.

3) Adding new elements to the cognitive structure, only those that contribute to the reduction of dissonance.

Festinger very carefully describes in his work a large number of experiments that explore various factors that contribute to the reduction of dissonance after a decision is made.

In particular, the study by Brem (1956) is well known, when he gave the subjects alternative solutions and offered to choose one of them. After some time, it was proposed to evaluate both the chosen and the rejected solution. In all cases, the chosen solutions were rated higher than those rejected. Aronson and Mills (1957) created a situation in which the subjects expended some effort to join a certain group, after which they were convinced that the group was "bad". The subjects reduced the resulting dissonance, trying to identify or simply "see" the positive characteristics of the group, to rate it higher. Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) experimented with children who had a toy taken away from them and even punished for using the toy. As a result, children began to especially love this toy. These and numerous other experiments are usually regarded as evidence of the productivity of the theory of dissonance. It was in the course of these experiments that many provisions of the theory were further developed.

Thus, Festinger supplements it with an analysis of such phenomena as forced consent, when dissonance is generated by the presence of a threat or the prospect of punishment, forced informational influence, which also contributes to the emergence or maintenance of dissonance. A special place is occupied by the study of the role of social support created in a group where disagreements are manifested, and one of the positions contributes either to strengthening or weakening the dissonance. In this regard, Festinger proceeds to analyze a number of "macro-phenomena": the role of rumors in society, mass conversion, and other forms of social influence. All this testifies to the significance and importance of the theory of cognitive dissonance. cognitive dissonance emotional experience

True, the experiments themselves, in which individual hypotheses are tested, are not rigorous enough and are vulnerable in many respects. Aronson owns a rather peculiar "justification" of them. He believes that many of the inaccuracies of the theory of dissonance grow out of the more general methodological difficulties of the socio-psychological experiment. "This weakness," writes Aronson, "is hardly the fault of the theory. Methodological difficulties concern all theories that predict socio-psychological phenomena. They are associated with the theory of dissonance simply because it produces the maximum amount of research." These general difficulties do exist, and one can agree with Aronson in characterizing some of them (for example, the lack of standardized techniques for operationalizing concepts in social psychology, the fact that alternative explanations for empirical results are possible and rather frequent, etc.). But all these are, indeed, general problems of social psychology, so that bringing them up as an argument in the analysis of one specific theory, although appropriate, is clearly not enough.

Conclusion

So, according to the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger, positive emotional experiences arise in a person when his expectations are confirmed, and cognitive ideas are brought to life, i.e. when the actual results of the activity correspond to the intended ones, are consistent with them, or, what is the same, are in consonance. Negative emotions arise and intensify in those cases when there is a discrepancy, inconsistency, dissonance between the expected and actual results of the activity.

In modern psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance is often used to explain the actions of a person, his actions in various social situations. Emotions are considered as the main motive for the corresponding actions and deeds. The dominant cognitivist orientation of modern psychological research has led to the fact that conscious assessments that a person gives to situations are also considered as emotional factors. It is believed that such assessments directly affect the nature of emotional experience.

Hosted on Allbest.ru

...

Similar Documents

The main hypotheses of Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance: occurrence, degree, decrease, limits of dissonance increase. Maximum dissonance, change in behavioral cognitive elements. Adding new cognitive elements.

abstract, added 03/29/2011


The concept of cognitive dissonance. Conflicting relationships between individual elements in the human knowledge system. Trying to match. The main causes of cognitive dissonance and its weakening. Cognitive dissonance in advertising.

presentation, added 04/20/2014


Socio-psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, created by the American psychologist L. Festinger. The appearance of dissonance is the path of a person to consonance. Festinger's cognition is any opinion or belief about the environment or one's behavior.

abstract, added 01/21/2011


The role of emotions in human life. Emotions, feelings and affects as the main emotional states. Stress as a kind of affect. Psychoorganic theory of emotions. Characterization of the main provisions of the activation theory. The theory of cognitive dissonance L. Festinger.

test, added 05/11/2010


Theories of cognitive correspondence: structural balance (F. Haider); communicative acts (T. Newcomb); cognitive dissonance (L. Festinger); congruence (Ch. Osgood,). The desire for internal balance, the correspondence of interpersonal relationships.

abstract, added 06.10.2008


The contribution of cognitive psychology to the development of psychological science. Theory of causal attribution. The system of personal constructs of a person. Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance. The main achievements of Jean Piaget, the significance of his scientific activity.

abstract, added 04/27/2013


The main types of emotional states of a person. Acquaintance with evolutionary, psycho-organic theories of emotions and the concept of cognitive dissonance. The study of the influence of classical music rhythms, waltz, march on the psychological state of a person.

term paper, added 09/29/2010


The importance of emotions in human life. Psychological theories of emotions. The theory of emotion as an organismic excitation. The evolutionary theory of Ch. Darwin. Types and internal components of emotions. The theory of cognitive dissonance. Information theory P.V. Simonov.

term paper, added 06/10/2012


Individual psychological and personal characteristics of a deceitful person, classification of deceptions. Problems and classification of lies in the works of domestic and foreign scientists. The theory of cognitive dissonance L. Festinger. Formation of deceit in a teenager.

term paper, added 11/23/2008


Characteristics of behavioral orientation. The concrete, abstract, social intelligence of Thorndike. Problems of interpersonal communication in the traditions of cognitivism. The theory of structural balance, communicative acts, cognitive dissonance and congruence.

Despite such a tricky name "cognitive dissonance", many people experience it in everyday life. Cognitive means the thought process, and dissonance means disagreement between something. The founder of cognitive dissonance is Festinger, who put forward his theories and concepts. The examples show what cognitive dissonance is.

In every person's life there are situations when you need to make a decision. If a person cannot quickly make a decision, this often indicates cognitive dissonance, that is, an inability to choose between two or even more options for solving a situation. Depending on how quickly a person chooses what he will give up and what he will follow, the decision will take one or another time.

Usually, cognitive dissonance occurs in situations where a person faces a choice: follow their own desires and motives or pay attention to public opinion, the norms of the law, morality? So, for example, cognitive dissonance will arise in a situation where a person learns about the betrayal of his soulmate. On the one hand, you want to fill your face with everything, on the other hand, you need to remember that such actions will lead to liability before the law.

Cognitive dissonance is manifested in the fact that a person is forced to limit himself in some way, since the desired does not always coincide with the possible. For example, a girl wants to live luxuriously and carefree, which is why she begins to look for a rich man. And to the society, which is outraged by her desires, she begins to tell various excuses for her behavior: “I lived in poverty”, “I wish a better life for my children”, etc.

Cognitive dissonance is when a person is faced with different options for solving one problem, and all of them are equivalent and equally important. And a person has to choose not between his desires, but between goals and public opinion, emotional impulses and the norms of the law, that is, between “I want” and “I need to”. A striking example of such dissonance is the child's unwillingness to learn. On the one hand, he needs to study, on the other hand, he does not want to waste time studying uninteresting topics.

And since it is not always possible for a person to follow the lead of public opinion, he is forced to look for various excuses. People will start asking why he didn't listen to them! And he must have good reasons for defiance.

The same thing happens in a situation where a person follows the lead of society, which is contrary to his personal desires. For example, a guy, instead of punishing his offender with his fists, simply turns around and leaves, as his parents taught him. In order to calm himself and justify his act, which may seem like a weakness to a guy, he begins to look for good reasons, they say, “this is how my parents taught”, “I showed intelligence”, etc.

Cognitive dissonance also manifests itself when an important decision needs to be made, but a person is overcome by strong doubts. Even when he has made a decision, a person continues to doubt and sort out other options for solving the situation in his head. For example, a woman decided to forgive her husband for his misdeed, but in the following days she continues to doubt whether this should have been done and how much this corresponds to her desires.

What is cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance refers to the site of a psychological help site to negative states in which one feels discomfort due to conflicting knowledge, worldviews, teachings, ideas, values, goals, behavioral attitudes and beliefs. Often experience and what a person has to do, habits and necessary, personal and social, often come into conflict.

Cognitive dissonance is a confrontation between two cognitions that are not equally significant for the person himself, but are equally possible when solving a certain issue. And a person faces a choice, for example, between the satisfaction of physical desires or moral values.

In order to overcome cognitive dissonance, a person makes a choice between experience and actions, and then begins to find a rational grain in what he has chosen in order to explain to himself and those around him his choice, which may seem wrong to someone. Thus, a person achieves inner balance, smoothness. Such a theory is put forward by the founder Leon Festinger, who noted that the most comfortable state for a person is cognitive coherence. And if an individual chooses one thing, then in order to achieve inner harmony, he begins to look for justifications for his own choice.

Causes of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance occurs for the following reasons:

1. The discrepancy between personal beliefs and the attitudes of the society or group in which the person is located.
2. The discrepancy between the concepts and ideas that a person operates with.
3. Contradiction with social norms and ethnic rules, especially if they do not correspond to the law or personal desires.
4. The inconsistency of the experience that a person has with the information that he receives in the new conditions. In other words, previous experience does not help in dealing with a new situation that is similar to the previous one.

Each person has knowledge and experience that he receives as he lives. However, new situations may indicate that his existing beliefs are not at all true or do not always work. Since a person is forced to solve problems, he begins to choose the best from the worst. And in order to achieve internal balance, he finds various justifications for his choice.

Festinger tried to explain the nature of the occurrence of cognitive dissonance, as well as ways to eliminate it. And here motivation stands out, which dictates to a person what choice he will make. The strongest motivation tells a person which idea should be abandoned in order to implement another. And then, in order to maintain balance in the new path, a person must justify his act.

Theory of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance has been known since ancient times, since a person has always faced the need to choose between personal desires and the norms of public life. Either a person will try to be a good citizen, or he will achieve success, which implies the presence of selfishness and obstinacy - qualities that are not acceptable in society.

Cognitive dissonance is natural for any person who cannot know everything about the world around them. The property of the brain is to remember what situations happened and what decisions were made, actions were performed, what was eventually obtained. If a person has achieved failure, then he draws certain conclusions, they say, “you don’t need to do this so as not to get into a mess again.” However, in a typical situation, a person acts differently and again encounters failure, and as a result of the analysis it turns out that he should have acted as he did in the previous situation.

Cognitive dissonance is the need to find a solution to one situation among the many options that a person has based on his experience, as well as those offered by society, individuals and even the law. Here a person must sometimes choose among options that do not correspond to his desires, habitual actions.

Since cognitive dissonance forces a person to give up something, he finds excuses. And anything can be used here: “I did the right thing, no matter what!”, “This is my life. I live the way I want!”, “Last time I did something wrong”, “I have the right to make a mistake”, etc. Psychologists identify such ways to reduce dissonance:

1. Transformation of one cognition, that is, assuring oneself of the opposite.
2. Changing your own behavior.
3. Filtering out the information that comes in.
4. See mistakes and change the decision, act according to it.

A way to reduce cognitive dissonance after the decision has been made may be for the person to exalt the significance of the decision they made and downplay all other options that were offered in fixing the problem.

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance

Leon Festinger put forward the following theories of cognitive dissonance:

• The individual will try to get rid of the cognitive dissonance when it occurs.
• A person will avoid all situations that will introduce him into cognitive dissonance.

In the process of cognitive dissonance, when the connection between ideas is lost or there is no coordination between actions and thoughts, the intellect and the person's reaction to those stimuli that are present in the situation are involved.

Cognitive dissonance can manifest itself in the fact that a person begins to repent or doubt the decision made. This may happen over time. The action has already been taken. The result is achieved, but it does not satisfy the desires of the person himself. And over time, he begins to repent, to feel remorse, subsequently making other decisions in similar situations.

Examples of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance happens to many people and there are many situations. Examples might be:

1. Receipt of an excellent student and a double student. Since a certain behavior is required from each student (an excellent student should study well, and a poor student should study poorly), cognitive dissonance sets in when an excellent student begins to study for twos, and a loser - for fives.
2. Bad habits. Sooner or later, everyone begins to understand that habits are harmful to health. And here a person faces a choice: to continue to harm himself or get rid of the habit.
3. Should you give charity? If you see a homeless person on the street, then you are faced with a choice: to give or not to give? It all depends on your inner convictions and social principles.
4. Striving to lose weight. On the one hand, the girl wants to lose weight. However, on the other hand, she may experience a strong desire to eat something delicious.

Since cognitive dissonance has occurred and will occur in the life of any person, various ways to avoid it are proposed:

• Humility with the situation, that is, begin to treat it as acceptable.
• A positive attitude is to see the positive aspects in the situation.
• Avoiding information that contradicts your views and experience.

Outcome

A person lives in a diverse world that cannot be explained only from one side. To avoid cognitive dissonance, you need to learn to see all the diversity and understand that in situations you can act badly, and selfishly, and wrongly, which is also normal if it gives positive results.