What is Cognitive Dissonance?

​Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable state of inner conflict. We strive to be whole. We create a simplified narrative that unifies desires, behaviors and actions. The human being, however, is not unified. We have trillions of neurons communicating in vast networks of connections. Our organism is constantly at work processing information and directing behavior, drawing on past, present, and predictions of the future.

Information is dynamic, constantly changing. Messages fit some frameworks of thought but clash with others. Our conscious attention is a limited resources, only capable of focusing on one element of this process at a time. Our thoughts focus on what is most salient at the moment. As attention shifts, we notice incongruencies and this creates psychological tension.

Leon Festinger, the brilliant social psychologist behind the theory of cognitive dissonance, explained that “becoming aware of conflicts between our beliefs and our actions, or between two simultaneously coexisting beliefs, violates the natural human striving for mental harmony, or consonance” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 59).

Festinger’s Basic Hypothesis of Cognitive Dissonance

Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance has two basic hypothesis. These are:

1. The existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance.
2. When dissonance is present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance (Festinger, 1957, p. 3).

Festinger theorized that cognitive dissonance motivated action to reduce the discomfort of internal opposing forces. He wrote that, “cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to activity oriented toward hunger reduction” (Festinger, 1957, p. 3).

Unconscious Brain Processes

Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G. Greenwald explain that some functions of our brains are strangers to our conscious minds. “We implicitly know something or feel a certain way, and often these thoughts and feelings are reflected in our actions too—the difference being that we can’t always explain these actions, and they are at times completely at odds with our conscious intentions” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 55).

Leon Festinger theorizes the consequences of our reaction to cognitive dissonance are enormous. Impacting relationships, politics and the world. He explains application of cognitive dissonance applies “to such diverse social problems as the cognitive biases of political partisans, the way people in the legal system can blind themselves to evidence that they have the wrong suspect, the ‘convenient’ distortions of memory, and to self-justifying rationalizations that fuel family rifts and international wars” (Festinger et al., 1956).

We seek congruity. It creates an internal harmonious state of homeostasis. When external events clash with internal events, we reduce dissonance through subjective interpretation of the event. We do this unconsciously. We may suppress information or quickly pass over relevant facts that oppose our beliefs and dwell on favorable stimuli that supports the belief. Our brains work in many mysterious and unseen ways to reduce the discomforts of dissonance.

See Unconscious Mind for more information on this topic

​Elements Susceptible to Conflict

Several cognitive elements may be in conflict:

• Logical propositions may conflict with beliefs
• Behavior may conflict with moral self-concepts
• Emotions may conflict with rational cognitions (Zastrow, 2017).

Why Try to Solve Cognitive Dissonance?

​Philip Zimbardo, the professor behind that conducted the infamous Stanford Prison study, wrote: “People will go to remarkable lengths to bring discrepant beliefs and behavior into some kind of functional coherence” (Zimbardo, 2008).

Leon Festinger puts it this way, “because dissonance is uncomfortable, people try to reduce it by changing one or both cognitions to make them more consonant with each other” (Festinger et al., 1956). Basically, when we consciously or unconsciously feel tension because of an inner conflict, we go to “remarkable lengths” to resolve the conflict.

Change the Belief

​Paul Dolan, Ph.D., a professor of behavioral science at the London School of Economics and Political Science, warns that when faced with cognitive dissonance, “it is much simpler to bring your attitudes in line with your behavior than vice versa” (Dolan, 2014).

​​Instead of noticing that a behavior is errant, out of alignment with proclaimed values, we justify the behavior, excusing it as an appropriate deviation. And thus we bring our dissonance back into comfortable alignment. Of course, the easiest path is not always the most adaptive response. Often the behavior needs reigning in and adjusted.

Festinger adds that when evidence arises that disputes fundamental beliefs, the individual “will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view” (Festinger et al., 1956).

Change the Behavior

When behavior and values are at odds, often the most adaptive response is to adjust the behavior. If I believe I am a good worker, but my performance is lacking, I step up the effort, bringing the behavior in line with my belief. 

The change relieves the dissonance. Of course, this is over-simplistic in writing. In practice, we deal with dynamic beliefs, shifting contexts, and varied behaviors. Living in alignment requires constant attention and continuous adjustments.

Disassociation

Banaji and Greenwald explain that dissociation is “the occurrence, in one and the same mind, of mutually inconsistent ideas that remain isolated from one another” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 57).

When we spot the contradiction, the opposing ideas create tension, we masterfully resolve the tension by keeping opposing beliefs in their own corners, surrounded by complimenting contexts. We believe we are a wonderful husband and father while we are gallivanting off with the woman from the office; we proudly partake in communion, donate to the church but believe in evolution.

Banaji and Greenwald point out that for any person “sharp enough to spot this contradiction in themselves, the discovery can pose a real conflict” (Banaji & Greenwald, 2016, p. 56). So, for many, it’s just easier to allow the conflicting ideas to co-exist in their own context without forcing a confrontation that needs to be resolved by abandoning one or both of the ideas.

Associated Concepts

• Self-Consistency: This concept involves maintaining a consistent self-view. It is related to coherence as it emphasizes the alignment of one’s self-perception with their actions and experiences.
• Homeostasis: This refers to the body’s ability to maintain stable internal conditions despite external changes. It involves a series of processes and mechanisms that work together to keep the body’s internal environment within a narrow range of optimal conditions, such as temperature, pH, and nutrient levels.
• Cognitive Coherence: This refers to the ability to maintain stability and consistency in one’s thoughts, emotions, and behaviors. When a person experiences psychological coherence, their beliefs, values, attitudes, and actions are generally aligned and in harmony with each other.
• System Justification Theory: This theory proposes that people have a motivation to defend and justify the status quo, including the existing social, economic, and political arrangements. According to this theory, individuals engage in cognitive processes to rationalize and justify the prevailing systems and institutions, even if such systems may be unfair or unequal.
• Affective-Cognitive Consistency: This refers to the alignment or congruence between a person’s emotions (affective) and their thoughts (cognitive). When an individual’s emotions and thoughts are in harmony, there is a sense of internal consistency and stability.
• Self-Complexity: This concept involves the idea that individuals have multiple, distinct, and relatively compartmentalized self-schemas. A person with high self-complexity has many different self-schemas that are not highly interconnected.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

​Without careful self-reflection, we slip into deceptions to resolve cognitive dissonance between actions and beliefs. We justify or ignore unhealthy behaviors even when those actions obviously conflict with self-perceptions.

If we honestly and closely examined ourselves, we may discover we lack compassion, fairness, or honesty. Transformation of character insists we acknowledge conduct leading us off course—and make corrections. Only with a clear view can we realign our trajectory with cherished intentions. As we act in accordance with the person we desire to be, we relieve the cognitive dissonance between beliefs and behaviors, freeing mental energy for more creative responses.

The cognitive dissonance (inner conflicts) sap energy. We can’t trust our unconscious mind to resolve these conflicts. To avoid hurtful mind games, we need a focused approach that continuously checks beliefs for correctness and  behaviors against virtues. Through conscious effort, we can eliminate the dissonance and become the person we want to be.​