Cognitive Dissonance:
Cognitive Dissonance is defined as the distressing emotional state that occurs
when an individual holds two conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours, which
can lead to irrational decision-making and negatively impact well-being. The
theory of cognitive dissonance states that inconsistency between beliefs or
behaviours creates an aversive motivational state (Cooper & Carlsmith, 2015).
This tension is typically reduced by changing one of the dissonant elements, or
adding new ones, until mental consonance is achieved. Aronson’s self-
consistency model (1968) proposed that dissonance resulted from behaviours
that were discrepant with one’s conception of oneself as a decent and sensible
person. Steele’s self-affirmation theory (1988) proposed that dissonance
emerged from threats to the overarching self-system, and that dissonance
reduction relied on reestablishing the integrity of the global self-concept. Cooper
and Fazio’s ‘New Look’ model (1984) proposed that dissonance resulted from
creating unwanted aversive consequences and did not require cognitive
inconsistency.
Cognitive dissonance theory was both innovative and provocative. Festinger
used the term “cognitive” to precede dissonance, arguing that all types of
thoughts, behaviours and perceptions were represented in people’s thinking by
way of their cognitive representations. Drive reduction is the process that makes
dissonance theory convert cognitive representations into attitude change and
other regulatory activities. Just as people need to reduce their thirst by drinking
and their hunger by eating, people who perceive inconsistency must find a way
to reduce it. The drive to reduce inconsistency can be accomplished by several
means, but attitude change became the most frequent resolution in the early
research on dissonance. People who are forced into inconsistency do not seem to
feel a need to become consistent. People who choose to behave inconsistently
do not feel a need to become consistent in the absence of aversive
consequences, or if aversive consequences are unforeseeable (Cooper, 2019).
Central to the theory is the idea that when a person holds two conflicting
cognitions, such as believing smoking is harmful while continuing to smoke, they
experience dissonance. Individuals may attempt to resolve this discomfort by
changing their beliefs, altering their behaviours, or re-evaluating the importance
of conflicting cognitions. Additionally, the theory suggests that the magnitude of
Cognitive Dissonance is defined as the distressing emotional state that occurs
when an individual holds two conflicting beliefs, attitudes, or behaviours, which
can lead to irrational decision-making and negatively impact well-being. The
theory of cognitive dissonance states that inconsistency between beliefs or
behaviours creates an aversive motivational state (Cooper & Carlsmith, 2015).
This tension is typically reduced by changing one of the dissonant elements, or
adding new ones, until mental consonance is achieved. Aronson’s self-
consistency model (1968) proposed that dissonance resulted from behaviours
that were discrepant with one’s conception of oneself as a decent and sensible
person. Steele’s self-affirmation theory (1988) proposed that dissonance
emerged from threats to the overarching self-system, and that dissonance
reduction relied on reestablishing the integrity of the global self-concept. Cooper
and Fazio’s ‘New Look’ model (1984) proposed that dissonance resulted from
creating unwanted aversive consequences and did not require cognitive
inconsistency.
Cognitive dissonance theory was both innovative and provocative. Festinger
used the term “cognitive” to precede dissonance, arguing that all types of
thoughts, behaviours and perceptions were represented in people’s thinking by
way of their cognitive representations. Drive reduction is the process that makes
dissonance theory convert cognitive representations into attitude change and
other regulatory activities. Just as people need to reduce their thirst by drinking
and their hunger by eating, people who perceive inconsistency must find a way
to reduce it. The drive to reduce inconsistency can be accomplished by several
means, but attitude change became the most frequent resolution in the early
research on dissonance. People who are forced into inconsistency do not seem to
feel a need to become consistent. People who choose to behave inconsistently
do not feel a need to become consistent in the absence of aversive
consequences, or if aversive consequences are unforeseeable (Cooper, 2019).
Central to the theory is the idea that when a person holds two conflicting
cognitions, such as believing smoking is harmful while continuing to smoke, they
experience dissonance. Individuals may attempt to resolve this discomfort by
changing their beliefs, altering their behaviours, or re-evaluating the importance
of conflicting cognitions. Additionally, the theory suggests that the magnitude of
