Cognitive Dissonance Theory Ian McCaulley

Introduction
Cognitive Dissonance Theory seeks to provide insight into the interactions of an
individuals attitudes, beliefs and actions. This is beneficial when one desires to examine the
reasons for an individuals behavior. In this paper, I will define Cognitive Dissonance Theory,
give a brief overview of the theorys author and the approach out of which it was born, describe
its current status in the scientific community, evaluate the theory, and suggest ways in which it
may be improved.
Theory Definitions and Approaches
Cognitive Dissonance Theory seeks to explain human behavior in terms of internal
conflict, or dissonance, defined as a state in which ones internal beliefs or attitudes conflict with
other beliefs, or with ones actions (West & Turner, 2010, p. 113). These attitudes and beliefs are
called cognitions (West & Turner, 2010, p. 113), and are central to Cognitive Dissonance Theory.
The theory further predicts that, due to the discomfort caused by cognitive dissonance, people
experiencing it will use a variety of coping methods to reduce the discomfort associated with the
dissonance (West & Turner, 2010, p. 118).
This theory was first proposed by psychologist Leon Festinger in 1957 (West & Turner,
2010, p. 113), after observing that Indian earthquake victims believed that an even larger
earthquake was coming, despite evidence to the contrary. Festinger believed that this was
because the people were seeking to justify the state of fear that they were already in (Leon
Festinger).
Cognitive Dissonance Theory seeks to predict the behavior of an individual who is
experiencing cognitive dissonance, which makes it an empirical, or positivistic, theory. (West &
Turner, 2010, p.124). Positivistic theories focus on predicting outcomes, such as what an
individual will do when exposed to a certain set of stimuli. In the case of Cognitive Dissonance
Theory, the stimulus in question is a state of cognitive dissonance.
Current Theory Status
Currently, interest in cognitive dissonance has waned, with the main interest being in
social cognitions. This due, in part, to the ease of conducting experiments in social cognition
compared to cognitive dissonance experiments, coupled with ethical concerns over the
discomfort of test subjects (Metin & Camgoz, 2011, p. 135). This does not, however, mean that
Cognitive Dissonance Theory is dead. Several derivative theories, focused more on social
cognition than on dissonance, have emerged, each owing its existence to their predecessor,
Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Metin & Camgoz, 2011, p. 135).
Along with Festinger himself, Elliot Aronson was one of the major researchers in
Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Aronson was responsible for one of the more important revisions
to the theory, discussed later in the paper, focusing on self-related expectations (Metin &
Camgoz, 2011, p. 134). This adjustment made Cognitive Dissonance Theory more relevant to
examining ones internal thought life.
In the decades since the publication of Cognitive Dissonance Theory was first published,
it has been applied in many different examinations. One of these is examining giftedness as a
possible example of cognitive dissonance (Andronaco, Shute, & McLachlan, 2013), which
indicates that Cognitive Dissonance Theory may be regaining popularity in the scientific
community.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory has also been applied to the literary world, in examining
how readers engage with fictional characters. This research has focused on readers perceptions
of how characters should act, versus how they do in the work under consideration (Marco, 2013).
More recently, Cognitive Dissonance Theory has been applied to the financial world,
specifically looking at how blame is distributed when a business venture fails, or when it incurs
losses (Chang, Solomon, & Westerfield, 2016). This research is very relevant, as it relates to the
behavior of businessmen and the economy. Such research has the potential to benefit all of
society, by explaining the behavior of major players in business; players that most of us rely on
for jobs.
Theory Evaluation
Cognitive Dissonance Theory requires very few specialized terms in order to be
understood and used. This plug and play type of theory can be used by the layperson to help
them in understanding their day-to-day interactions or, as is the case with Cognitive Dissonance
Theory, their own thought life. This degree of parsimony, a fancy word for ease of use, makes
Cognitive Dissonance Theory a useful addition to the list of communication theories.
Logical inconsistency, or the presence of internal contradictions, is a certain sign that a
theory is in trouble, and that it may not be true. Cognitive Dissonance Theory does not encounter
this problem, as it does not contradict itself. This is due in part to the simplicity of the theory; it
has relatively few elements in it, which means fewer chances for contradiction.
This simplicity leads to some disadvantages, however, as some critics question the
utility, or usefulness, of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Researchers question the utility of
Cognitive Dissonance Theory on the grounds that other theories can better explain the concepts
that it addresses (West & Turner, 2010, p. 125).
Another complaint raised by critics of Cognitive Dissonance Theory relates to the
theorys testability, that is the ability of researchers to test the claims of the theory. Because
Cognitive Dissonance Theory relates to a persons thoughts, not just their behavior, it gives
proponents of the theory an easy escape route to prevent the theory from being disproven. This
escape comes in the form of claiming that the magnitude of dissonance was not large enough to
cause action, if a test subject does not act when expected (West & Turner, 2010, p. 127). This
makes it difficult to disprove Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which makes it a less desirable
theory.
Improvements to the Theory
 In order to be more useful, Cognitive Dissonance Theory needs to broaden the range of
coping mechanisms that it deals with. Denial, where one member of a set of conflicting
cognitions is treated as if it did not exist, is not addressed in Cognitive Dissonance Theory,
although it can be observed in action (Scott-Kakures, 2009). This is a disadvantage to Cognitive
Dissonance Theory, because it leaves gaps in the theory that do not address aspects of reality that
are related to the theory. This limits the utility of the theory, making it less useful in everyday
life.
This lack limits one of its chief practical uses, which is dealing with non-productive
coping strategies. Cognitive Dissonance Theory can be used to help people deal with dissonance
in a productive way. Cognitive dissonance, and the discomfort associated with it, can seriously
degrade a persons quality of life, even to the point of suicide. People who are not familiar with
Cognitive Dissonance Theory may not be aware that conflicting cognitions are the cause their
distress, which can make it difficult to cope effectively with their problems. By using Cognitive
Dissonance Theory, it is possible to helps someone to discover the cause of their dissonance and
deal with it constructively rather than letting it ruin their life.
Conclusion
Cognitive Dissonance Theory, which focuses on the internal struggle between beliefs and
attitudes, also called cognitions, is an established intrapersonal theory that appears to be making
a return after a brief absence. Its simplicity and logical consistency make it easy to learn,
although this selfsame parsimony has been grounds for complaints against its utility, as other
theories explain the same phenomena as Cognitive Dissonance Theory. The theory has also been
criticized for the difficulty of testing it, due to the difficulty of disproving its assertions.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory would benefit from a degree of improvement, in the form of
broadening its list of coping methods to include a broader variety of coping methods used by
people, that are not covered in the current iteration of the theory.
In this assignment, I learned that internal conflict is a strong motivating force for people
to change, and that understanding it can help us to understand our own actions. This will be
helpful in finding instances of dissonance in my own life, and dealing with the conflict in a
constructive manner.

References
Andronaco, J. A., Shute, R., & McLachlan, A. (2014). Exploring Asynchrony as a
Theoretical Framework for Understanding Giftedness: A Case of Cognitive
Dissonance?. Roeper Review, 36(4), 264-272.

Chang, T. Y., Solomon, D. H., & Westerfield, M. M. (2016). Looking for Someone to
Blame: Delegation, Cognitive Dissonance, and the Disposition Effect. Journal Of
Finance, 71(1), 267-302. doi:10.1111/jofi.12311

Leon Festinger (1919-1989). (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2017, from

http://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/leon-festinger.html

Marco, C. (2013). Patterns of cognitive dissonance in readers engagement with

characters. Enthymema, Vol 0, (Iss 8), Pp 21-37 (2013), (8), 21.
doi:10.13130/2037-2426/2903

Metin, I., & Camgoz, S. M. (2011). The Advances in the History of Cognitive Dissonance
Theory. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science,1(6), 131-136.
Retrieved March 29, 2017, from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268351526_The_Advances_in_the_Hist
ory_of_Cognitive_Dissonance_Theory.

Scott-Kakures, D. (2009). Unsettling Questions: Cognitive Dissonance in Self-

Deception. Social Theory & Practice, 35(1), 73.

West, R., & Turner, L. H. (2010). Introducing Communication Theory: Analysis and
Application (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.