The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance

Leon Festinger formulated the cognitive dissonance theory in 1957 at Stanford University. He asserted, ‘‘When attitudes conflict with actions, attitudes or beliefs, we are uncomfortable and motivated to try to change.’’ Festinger’s theory sets the foundation for the Law of Dissonance, one of the twelve laws of Maximum Influence.

The Law of Dissonance states that people will naturally act in a manner that is consistent with their cognitions (beliefs, attitudes, and values). Therefore, when people behave in a manner that is inconsistent with these cognitions, they find themselves in a state of discomfort. In such an uncomfortable state, they will naturally be inclined to adjust their behaviors or attitudes to regain mental and emotional consistency. When our beliefs, attitudes, and actions mesh, we live harmoniously. When they don’t, we feel dissonance at some level—that is, we feel awkward, uncomfortable, unsettled, disturbed, upset, nervous, or confused. In order to eliminate or reduce such tension, we will do everything possible to change our attitudes and behavior, even if it means doing something we don’t want to do.

Imagine that there is a big rubber band inside you. When dissonance is present, the rubber band begins to stretch. As long as the dissonance exists, the band stretches tighter and tighter. You’ve got to take action before it reaches a breaking point and snaps. The motivation to reduce the tension is what causes us to change; we will do everything in our power to get back in balance. We seek psycho-emotional stasis at all times, much like we experience the ever-present, driving need for food and water to satisfy our physical being.

Methods of Protecting Mental Consistency

When we feel cognitive dissonance, we have to find a way to deal with the psychological tension. We have an arsenal of tools at our disposal to help us return to cognitive consistency. The following list outlines different ways people seek to reduce dissonance.

Denial—To shut out the dissonance, you deny there is a problem. You do this either by ignoring or demeaning the source of the information. You might also deliberately misperceive the confronting position.

Modification—You change your existing cognitions to achieve consistency. Most of the time this involves admitting you were wrong and making changes to remedy your errors.

Reframing—You change your understanding or interpretation of the meaning. This leads you to either modify your own thinking or devalue the importance of the whole matter, considering it unimportant altogether.

Search—You are determined to find a flaw in the other side’s position, to discredit the source, and to seek social or evidentiary support for your own viewpoint. You might attempt to convince the source (if available) of his error. You might also try to convince others you did the right thing.

Separation—You separate the attitudes that are in conflict. This compartmentalizes your cognitions, making it easier for you to ignore or even forget the discrepancy. In your mind, what happens in one area of your life (or someone else’s) should not affect the other areas of your life.

Rationalization—You find excuses for why the inconsistency is acceptable. You change your expectations or try to alter what really happened. You also find reasons to justify your behavior or your opinions.

Consider how each of the above strategies could apply if the following experience actually happened in your own life: Your favorite politician, the local mayor, for whom you campaigned and voted, is in trouble. You spent your own time and money convincing family, friends, and neighbors to vote for this candidate. You thought he was a family man, a man of values, somebody who could be trusted. Now, after two years in office, he’s been caught red-handed having an affair with an office staff member, who is barely older than his daughter. The news creates dissonance inside you. To alleviate the dissonance, you might react in any one or combination of the following ways:

Denial—‘‘This is just the media going after him. He is doing a great job, so the opposing party is trying to smear his good name. This will all blow over when the facts come out. It’s all just a big misunderstanding.’’

Modification—‘‘I can’t believe I voted for this guy. I feel swindled and taken advantage of. I really mistook him for a man of character. I need to apologize to my family and friends. I cannot support a man who does not honor his wedding vows.’’

Reframing—‘‘The media said affair. Well, I’m sure he didn’t actually sleep with her. Maybe they’re just

good friends. I’m sure his wife knew all about the whole thing. Even if they did have an affair, who doesn’t? Is it that big of a deal?’’

Search—‘‘I’ve heard about the reporter breaking this story. He’s blown things out of proportion before. All the friends I’ve talked to don’t think the story is true. In fact, this reporter has been against the mayor from the time he became a candidate. I’m going to call that reporter right now.’’

Separation—‘‘I voted for him and he is doing a great job. Inflation is low, unemployment is not a problem, and crime has been reduced. He is doing everything he said he would. It does not matter what he does in his private life. What matters is how he is doing his job. There is no connection between an affair and his job performance.’’

Rationalization—‘‘Well, his wife is cold to him and she’s never around when he needs her. She’s never really supported him since he took office. After all, she still has her own business. Maybe this is just a marriage of convenience and this relationship is part of their agreement.’’

Everyday Examples of Dissonance

Listed below are some situations that might create dissonance.

You are a strict vegetarian but you see a stylish leather jacket on sale and want to buy it.

You made a New Year’s resolution to exercise every day. It is now halfway through February, and you have not yet been to the gym once.

You are on a stringent diet when you see Ben and Jerry’s ice-cream on sale at the grocery store.

‘‘Buyer’s remorse’’ is also a form of dissonance. When we purchase a product or service, we tend to look for ways to convince ourselves that we made the right decision. If the people around us or other factors make us question our decision, we experience buyer’s remorse. On feeling this inconsistency, we’ll look for anything—facts, peer validation, expert opinion—to reduce the dissonance in our minds concerning the purchase. Some of us even use selective exposure to minimize the risk of seeing or hearing something that could cause dissonance. Often people won’t even tell family or friends about their purchase or decision because they know it will create dissonance.

Maintaining Psychological Consistency

We find what we seek. If we can’t find it, we make it up. In politics, members of different parties will refuse to peaceably or tolerantly listen to opposing party commercials. Smokers won’t read articles about the dangers of smoking. Drug users don’t spend much time at clinics. We don’t want to find information that might oppose our current points of view.

A study by Knox and Inkster found interesting results at a racetrack.

They interviewed people waiting in line to place a bet, and then questioned them again after they’d placed a bet. They found people were much more confident with their decisions after they had placed their bet than before the bet was made. They exuded greater confidence in their decisions and their chosen horses after their decisions were final and their bets were firmly in place.[1]

Younger, Walker, and Arrowood decided to conduct a similar experiment at the midway of the Canadian National Exposition. They interviewed people who had already placed bets on a variety of different games (bingo, wheel of fortune, etc.) as well as people who were still on their way to place bets. They asked each of the people if they felt confident they were going to win. Paralleling the findings of Knox and Inkster’s study, the people who had already made their bets felt luckier and more confident than those who had not yet placed their wagers.[2]

These studies show that to reduce dissonance, we often simply convince ourselves that we have made the right decision. Once we place a bet or purchase a product or service, we feel more confident with ourselves and the choice we’ve made. This concept also holds true in persuasion and sales. Once the payment is given for your product or service, your prospects will usually feel more confident with their decisions. Have them make the payment or finalize the choice as soon as possible! This will increase their confidence in their decision and they will look for reasons to justify that decision.

Many times, even when we have made a bad decision, we become so entrenched in our belief that it was right that we will fight to the bitter end to prove it. We can’t handle the dissonance in our minds, so we find anything to prove our decision was right. We become so embroiled in justifying our actions that we are willing to go down with the burning ship.

When buying and selling shares of stock, investors commonly stick with stocks that have recently slumped in price, with no prospects of recovery. Rationally, the best decision is to cut their losses and invest elsewhere. Irrationally, however, investors often hang on, ensnared by their initial decision.

McDonald’s sued five London activists for libeling them in a leaflet entitled ‘‘What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?’’ The pamphlets asserted many claims, including that the franchise’s food was unhealthy and that the company exploited its workers, contributed to the destruction of rain forests through cattle ranching, produced litter, and sought to target children through its advertising. While three of the activists backed down, two of them went on to fight McDonald’s in court. The case evolved into the longest court proceeding in the legal history of Britain. It came to be considered ‘‘the most expensive and disastrous public relations exercise ever mounted by a multinational company.’’[3]

Spreading negative publicity across the globe, two million copies of ‘‘What’s Wrong with McDonald’s?’’ went into circulation. An Internet site following the case received seven million hits in its first year. Having publicly asserted its stance that the company would challenge its antagonists, McDonald’s was trapped. Forced to remain consistent to its position, McDonald’s fought to the bitter end. This case took two-and-a-half years and cost McDonald’s over $10 million to fight before the company finally won the case. Given the ramifications, perhaps it would have been better if the company had just cut their losses and moved on.

[1]R. E. Knox and J. A. Inkster, ‘‘Post-decision Dissonance at Post-time,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 18 (1968): 319–323.

[2]J. C. Younger, L. Walker, and A. S. Arrowood, ‘‘Post-decision Dissonance at the Fair,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 3 (1977): 284–287.

[3]David Mitchie, Invisible Persuaders (New York: Bantam Books, 1988), p. 95.