We, as human beings, all make stupid mistakes once every while. But we
do not like to view ourselves as being stupid. Rather, we would like to
view ourselves as rational, moral beings. How then, can we maintain that
positive self-image after we have done something irrational or immoral?
Once we have done something that is not in line with our own thoughts, opinions or values, we get an uncomfortable feeling, better known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. It is “a drive or feeling of discomfort, originally defined as being caused by holding two or more inconsistent cognitions and subsequently defined as being caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one’s customary, typically positive self-conception” (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2007). The inconsistency that upsets us the most, is the one that threatens our self-image. Because now there is a discrepancy between who we think we are, and the way we behaved (Aronson, 1969). In order to reduce this dissonance we can do three things (Aronson et al., 2007):
1. Adapt our behavior to the dissonant cognition;
2. Change a dissonant cognition to justify our behavior;
3. Add a new cognition to justify our behavior.
We can apply all of these forms of dissonance reduction to the example of smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health (see picture). But still, millions of people around the world smoke daily. One way to deal with our dissonance is to give up smoking. This way we adapt our behavior (i.e. smoking) to the dissonant cognition (i.e. smoking is bad for your health). We can also change a dissonant cognition to justify our behavior. One can say, for example, that the research that has been done on cancer as a consequence of smoking is inconclusive. Finally, we can add a new cognition to justify our behavior. By coming up with the example of the 92 year old grandfather who has been smoking all of his life, we can convince ourselves that smoking isn’t that bad after all. This process of convincing ourselves is also known as ‘rationalization’ (Aronson et al., 2007).
Even until today the theory of cognitive dissonance is one of the most provocative in psychology. A famous study that illustrates cognitive dissonance was done by the American social psychologist Leon Festinger, founder of the theory, and his colleague James Carlsmith (1959). Subjects had to perform boring, monotonous tasks for about one and a half hour. After the subject was done, the examiners asked him/her to tell the next subject that the experiment was “really very interesting. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it”, that is, not telling the truth to the next subject. One group received $1,- for this little lie, another group $20,-. After that, they asked the participant how much they enjoyed the experiment for real. On forehand you would expect the twenty-dollar group to enjoy the experiment the most. After all, they received the highest amount of cash. However, this was not the case. The one-dollar group rated the tasks as more enjoyable than the twenty-dollar group. Festinger and Carlsmith hypothesized that people in the one-dollar group felt a higher pressure to reduce their dissonance, because they did not receive that much money. Therefore, they convinced themselves that the tasks were more enjoyable.
Once we have done something that is not in line with our own thoughts, opinions or values, we get an uncomfortable feeling, better known as ‘cognitive dissonance’. It is “a drive or feeling of discomfort, originally defined as being caused by holding two or more inconsistent cognitions and subsequently defined as being caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one’s customary, typically positive self-conception” (Aronson, Wilson & Akert, 2007). The inconsistency that upsets us the most, is the one that threatens our self-image. Because now there is a discrepancy between who we think we are, and the way we behaved (Aronson, 1969). In order to reduce this dissonance we can do three things (Aronson et al., 2007):
1. Adapt our behavior to the dissonant cognition;
2. Change a dissonant cognition to justify our behavior;
3. Add a new cognition to justify our behavior.
We can apply all of these forms of dissonance reduction to the example of smoking. Everyone knows smoking is bad for your health (see picture). But still, millions of people around the world smoke daily. One way to deal with our dissonance is to give up smoking. This way we adapt our behavior (i.e. smoking) to the dissonant cognition (i.e. smoking is bad for your health). We can also change a dissonant cognition to justify our behavior. One can say, for example, that the research that has been done on cancer as a consequence of smoking is inconclusive. Finally, we can add a new cognition to justify our behavior. By coming up with the example of the 92 year old grandfather who has been smoking all of his life, we can convince ourselves that smoking isn’t that bad after all. This process of convincing ourselves is also known as ‘rationalization’ (Aronson et al., 2007).
Even until today the theory of cognitive dissonance is one of the most provocative in psychology. A famous study that illustrates cognitive dissonance was done by the American social psychologist Leon Festinger, founder of the theory, and his colleague James Carlsmith (1959). Subjects had to perform boring, monotonous tasks for about one and a half hour. After the subject was done, the examiners asked him/her to tell the next subject that the experiment was “really very interesting. I’m sure you’ll enjoy it”, that is, not telling the truth to the next subject. One group received $1,- for this little lie, another group $20,-. After that, they asked the participant how much they enjoyed the experiment for real. On forehand you would expect the twenty-dollar group to enjoy the experiment the most. After all, they received the highest amount of cash. However, this was not the case. The one-dollar group rated the tasks as more enjoyable than the twenty-dollar group. Festinger and Carlsmith hypothesized that people in the one-dollar group felt a higher pressure to reduce their dissonance, because they did not receive that much money. Therefore, they convinced themselves that the tasks were more enjoyable.
0 comments:
Post a Comment