What Is Cognitive Dissonance Theory?
Saul McLeod, PhD
Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester
Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.
Learn about our Editorial Process
Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc
Associate Editor for Simply Psychology
BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education
Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.
On This Page:
Cognitive dissonance refers to a situation involving conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors.
This produces a feeling of mental discomfort leading to an alteration in one of the attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the discomfort and restore balance.
For example, when people smoke (behavior) and they know that smoking causes cancer (cognition), they are in a state of cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger, arising out of a participant observation study of a cult that believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood, and what happened to its members — particularly the really committed ones who had given up their homes and jobs to work for the cult — when the flood did not happen.
While fringe members were more inclined to recognize that they had made fools of themselves and to “put it down to experience,” committed members were more likely to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members).
How Attitude Change Takes Place
Festinger’s (1957) cognitive dissonance theory suggests that we have an inner drive to hold all our attitudes and behavior in harmony and avoid disharmony (or dissonance). This is known as the principle of cognitive consistency.
When there is an inconsistency between attitudes or behaviors (dissonance), something must change to eliminate the dissonance.
Notice that dissonance theory does not state that these modes of dissonance reduction will actually work, only that individuals who are in a state of cognitive dissonance will take steps to reduce the extent of their dissonance.
The theory of cognitive dissonance has been widely researched in a number of situations to develop the basic idea in more detail, and various factors have been identified which may be important in attitude change.
What Causes Cognitive Dissonance?
- Forced Compliance Behavior,
- Decision Making,
We will look at the main findings to have emerged from each area.
Forced Compliance Behavior
When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don’t want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn’t want to do this) and their behavior (I did it).
Forced compliance occurs when an individual performs an action that is inconsistent with his or her beliefs. The behavior can’t be changed since it was already in the past, so dissonance will need to be reduced by re-evaluating their attitude toward what they have done. This prediction has been tested experimentally:
In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you can imagine, participant’s attitudes toward this task were highly negative.
Example of Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behavior.
In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour).
They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting participant (a confederate) that the tasks were really interesting. Almost all of the participants agreed to walk into the waiting room and persuade the confederate that the boring experiment would be fun.
When the participants were asked to evaluate the experiment, the participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.
Being paid only $1 is not sufficient incentive for lying and so those who were paid $1 experienced dissonance. They could only overcome that dissonance by coming to believe that the tasks really were interesting and enjoyable. Being paid $20 provides a reason for turning pegs, and there is, therefore, no dissonance.
Decision Making
Life is filled with decisions, and decisions (as a general rule) arouse dissonance.
For example, suppose you had to decide whether to accept a job in an absolutely beautiful area of the country or turn down the job so you could be near your friends and family.
Either way, you would experience dissonance. If you took the job you would miss your loved ones; if you turned the job down, you would pine for the beautiful streams, mountains, and valleys.
Both alternatives have their good points and bad points. The rub is that making a decision cuts off the possibility that you can enjoy the advantages of the unchosen alternative, yet it assures you that you must accept the disadvantages of the chosen alternative.
Brehm (1956) was the first to investigate the relationship between dissonance and decision-making.
Female participants were informed they would be helping out in a study funded by several manufacturers. Participants were also told that they would receive one of the products at the end of the experiment to compensate for their time and effort.
The women then rated the desirability of eight household products that ranged in price from $15 to $30. The products included an automatic coffee maker, an electric sandwich grill, an automatic toaster, and a portable radio.
Participants in the control group were simply given one of the products. Because these participants did not make a decision, they did not have any dissonance to reduce. Individuals in the low-dissonance group chose between a desirable product and one rated 3 points lower on an 8-point scale.
Participants in the high-dissonance condition chose between a highly desirable product and one rated just 1 point lower on the 8-point scale. After reading the reports about the various products, individuals rated the products again.
Participants in the high-dissonance condition spread apart the alternatives significantly more than the participants in the other two conditions.
In other words, they were more likely than participants in the other two conditions to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and to decrease the attractiveness of the unchosen alternative.
It also seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required considerable effort to achieve.
This is probably because dissonance would be caused if we spent a great effort to achieve something and then evaluated it negatively.
We could, of course, spend years of effort into achieving something which turns out to be a load of rubbish and then, in order to avoid the dissonance that produces, try to convince ourselves that we didn’t really spend years of effort or that the effort was really quite enjoyable, or that it wasn’t really a lot of effort.
In fact, though, it seems we find it easier to persuade ourselves that what we have achieved is worthwhile, and that’s what most of us do, evaluating highly something whose achievement has cost us dear – whether other people think it’s much cop or not!
This method of reducing dissonance is known as “effort justification.”
If we put effort into a task that we have chosen to carry out, and the task turns out badly, we experience dissonance. To reduce this dissonance, we are motivated to try to think that the task turned out well.
A classic dissonance experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959) demonstrates the basic idea.
To investigate the relationship between dissonance and effort.
Female students volunteered to take part in a discussion on the psychology of sex. In the “mild embarrassment” condition, participants read aloud to a male experimenter a list of sex-related words like “virgin” and “prostitute.”
In the “severe embarrassment” condition, they had to read aloud obscene words and a very explicit sexual passage.
In the control condition, they went straight into the main study. In all conditions, they then heard a very boring discussion about sex in lower animals. They were asked to rate how interesting they had found the discussion and how interesting they had found the people involved in it.
Participants in the “severe embarrassment” condition gave the most positive rating.
If a voluntary experience that has cost a lot of effort turns out badly, the dissonance is reduced by redefining the experience as interesting. This justifies the effort made.
How To Reduce Cognitive Dissonance
Dissonance can be reduced in one of three ways: a) changing existing beliefs, b) adding new beliefs, or c) reducing the importance of the beliefs.
Change one or more of the attitudes, behavior, beliefs, etc., to make the relationship between the two elements a consonant one.
When one of the dissonant elements is a behavior, the individual can change or eliminate the behavior.
However, this mode of dissonance reduction frequently presents problems for people, as it is often difficult for people to change well-learned behavioral responses (e.g., giving up smoking).
This is often very difficult, as people frequently employ a variety of mental maneuvers.
Acquire new information that outweighs the dissonant beliefs.
For example, thinking smoking causes lung cancer will cause dissonance if a person smokes.
However, new information such as “research has not proved definitely that smoking causes lung cancer” may reduce the dissonance.
Reduce the importance of the cognitions (i.e., beliefs, attitudes).
A common way to reduce dissonance is to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and decrease the attractiveness of the rejected alternative. This is referred to as “spreading apart the alternatives.”
A person could convince themself that it is better to “live for today” than to “save for tomorrow.”
In other words, he could tell himself that a short life filled with smoking and sensual pleasures is better than a long life devoid of such joys. In this way, he would be decreasing the importance of dissonant cognition (smoking is bad for one’s health).
Critical Evaluation
There has been a great deal of research into cognitive dissonance, providing some interesting and sometimes unexpected findings.
It is a theory with very broad applications, showing that we aim for consistency between attitudes and behaviors and may not use very rational methods to achieve it. It has the advantage of being testable by scientific means (i.e., experiments).
However, there is a problem from a scientific point of view because we cannot physically observe cognitive dissonance, and therefore we cannot objectively measure it (re: behaviorism). Consequently, the term cognitive dissonance is somewhat subjective.
There is also some ambiguity (i.e., vagueness) about the term “dissonance” itself. Is it a perception (as “cognitive” suggests), a feeling, or a feeling about a perception? Aronson’s Revision of the idea of dissonance as an inconsistency between a person’s self-concept and a cognition about their behavior makes it seem likely that dissonance is really nothing more than guilt.
There are also individual differences in whether or not people act as this theory predicts. Highly anxious people are more likely to do so. Many people seem able to cope with considerable dissonance and not experience the tensions the theory predicts.
Finally, many of the studies supporting the theory of cognitive dissonance have low ecological validity. For example, turning pegs (as in Festinger’s experiment) is an artificial task that doesn’t happen in everyday life.
Also, the majority of experiments used students as participants, which raises issues of a biased sample . Could we generalize the results from such experiments?
What is the difference between cognitive dissonance theory and balance theory?
Cognitive dissonance theory, proposed by Festinger, focuses on the discomfort felt when holding conflicting beliefs or attitudes, leading individuals to seek consistency.
Heider’s Balance Theory , on the other hand, emphasizes the desire for balanced relations among triads of entities (like people and attitudes), with imbalances prompting changes in attitudes to restore balance. Both theories address cognitive consistency, but in different contexts.
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2) , 177.
Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52(3) , 384.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of cognitive dissonance . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L. (1959). Some attitudinal consequences of forced decisions . Acta Psychologica , 15, 389-390.
Festinger, L. (Ed.). (1964). Conflict, decision, and dissonance (Vol. 3) . Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2) , 203.
- History & Society
- Science & Tech
- Biographies
- Animals & Nature
- Geography & Travel
- Arts & Culture
- Games & Quizzes
- On This Day
- One Good Fact
- New Articles
- Lifestyles & Social Issues
- Philosophy & Religion
- Politics, Law & Government
- World History
- Health & Medicine
- Browse Biographies
- Birds, Reptiles & Other Vertebrates
- Bugs, Mollusks & Other Invertebrates
- Environment
- Fossils & Geologic Time
- Entertainment & Pop Culture
- Sports & Recreation
- Visual Arts
- Demystified
- Image Galleries
- Infographics
- Top Questions
- Britannica Kids
- Saving Earth
- Space Next 50
- Student Center
- Introduction
- Social pressures in informal groups
- Social comparison theory
- Cognitive dissonance
Psychosocial archeology
Cognitive dissonance of Leon Festinger
Our editors will review what you’ve submitted and determine whether to revise the article.
- MLibrary Digital Collections - Bentley Historical Library - Leon Festinger papers: 1939-1988
- GoodTherapy - Biography of Leon Festinger
- The National Academies Press - Biographical Memoirs - Leon Festinger
- Table Of Contents
While at the University of Minnesota , Festinger read about a cult that believed that the end of the world was at hand. A woman, “Mrs. Keech,” reported receiving messages from extraterrestrial aliens that the world would end in a great flood on a specific date. She attracted a group of followers who left jobs, schools, and spouses and who gave away money and possessions to prepare to depart on a flying saucer that, according to Mrs. Keech, would arrive to rescue the true believers. Given the believers’ serious commitment, Festinger wondered how they would react when the prophecy failed. He and his colleagues, posing as believers, infiltrated Mrs. Keech’s group and kept notes on the proceedings surreptitiously.
The believers shunned publicity while they awaited the flying saucer and the flood. But when the prophecy was disconfirmed, almost immediately the previously most-committed group members made calls to newspapers, sought out interviews, and started actively proselytizing .
Festinger was unsurprised by the sudden proselytizing after the prophecy’s disconfirmation; he saw the cult members as enlisting social support for their belief to lessen the pain of its disconfirmation. Their behaviour confirmed predictions from his cognitive dissonance theory, whose premise was that people need to maintain consistency between thoughts, feelings, and behaviours.
Festinger’s theory proposes that inconsistency among beliefs or behaviours causes an uncomfortable psychological tension (i.e., cognitive dissonance ), leading people to change one of the inconsistent elements to reduce the dissonance or to add consonant elements to restore consonance. Mrs. Keech’s followers actively enlisted new believers to obtain social support (and thereby add consonant elements) to reduce the dissonance created by the disconfirmation.
In 1955 Festinger left the University of Minnesota for Stanford University , where he and his students launched a series of laboratory experiments testing cognitive dissonance theory and extending it to a wide range of phenomena. One of the best known was the forced-compliance paradigm, in which the subject performed a series of repetitive and boring menial tasks and then was asked to lie to the “next subject” (actually an experimental accomplice) and say that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. Some subjects were paid $1 for lying, while others were paid $20.
Based on dissonance theory, Festinger correctly predicted that the subjects who were paid $1 for lying later evaluated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. The subjects who were paid $20 should not have experienced dissonance, because they were well rewarded and had ample justification for lying, whereas those paid $1 had little justification for lying and should have experienced cognitive dissonance. To reduce the dissonance, they reevaluated the boring task as interesting and enjoyable.
In 1964, Festinger moved from social psychology to research on visual perception . Although a seemingly radical departure, it was in fact a continuation of a theme. Festinger’s work on visual perception concerned how people reconcile inconsistencies between visual perception and eye movements to see coherent images. His social psychological research concerned how people resolve conflict (group dynamics), ambiguity (social comparison), and inconsistency (cognitive dissonance)—all manifestations of pressures for uniformity.
In 1968 Festinger was appointed the Else and Hans Staudinger Professor of Psychology at the New School for Social Research in New York City . In the late 1970s he turned to questions about human nature raised by archeological data. His work resulted in a monograph, The Human Legacy , published in 1983. A general theme of that work was that humans often bring about problems unwittingly, as a result of intellectual and creative talents—for example, creating new technologies without being fully able to foresee their long-term consequences. Initially, Festinger’s “archeological” work was perceived as being at the margins of social psychology, but it was later seen as prescient of contemporary developments in evolutionary and cultural psychology .
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
- Reference work entry
- First Online: 01 January 2020
- Cite this reference work entry
- Blake M. McKimmie 3
209 Accesses
Cognitive consistency ; Dissonance ; Hypocrisy ; Inconsistency
Cognitive dissonance was defined by Leon Festinger as an aversive psychological drive state that when experienced we are motivated to reduce (Festinger 1957 ). Dissonance is the result of inconsistency between two or more cognitions, and these cognitions may represent one’s attitudes, thoughts about one’s behavior, or other stored information. As the number of cognitions that are inconsistent with each other increases, the amount of dissonance also increases.
Introduction
When Festinger ( 1957 ) proposed cognitive dissonance theory, the behaviorist perspective and reinforcement theory (e.g., Skinner 1938 ) were influential in how theorists thought about human behavior. According to the behaviorist perspective, people are motivated to hold particular attitudes and behave in certain ways to gain positive reinforcement and avoid punishment. As such, a person would be more likely to have a positive attitude toward...
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Subscribe and save.
- Get 10 units per month
- Download Article/Chapter or eBook
- 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
- Cancel anytime
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Durable hardcover edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Aronson, E. (1968). Dissonance theory: Progress and problems. In R. P. Abelson, E. Aronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenberg, & P. H. Tannenbaum (Eds.), Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook (pp. 5–27). Chicago: Rand McNally.
Google Scholar
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1963). Effect of severity of threat on the devaluation of forbidden behavior. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 , 584–588.
Article Google Scholar
Aronson, J., Blanton, H., & Cooper, J. (1995). From dissonance to disidentification: Selectivity in the self-affirmation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68 (6), 986–996.
Beauvois, J. L., & Joule, R. V. (1996). A radical dissonance theory . London: Taylor and Francis.
Beauvois, J. L., & Joule, R. V. (1999). A radical view on dissonance theory. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology (pp. 43–70). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chapter Google Scholar
Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74 , 183–200.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52 , 384–389.
Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17 , 229–266.
Croyle, R. T., & Cooper, J. (1983). Dissonance arousal: Physiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 45 (4), 782–791.
Dickerson, C., Thibodeau, R., Aronson, E., & Miller, D. (1992). Using cognitive dissonance to encourage water conservation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22 , 841–854.
Elkin, R. A., & Leippe, M. R. (1986). Physiological arousal, dissonance, and attitude change: Evidence for a dissonance-arousal link and a “don’t remind me” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (1), 55–65.
Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67 (3), 382–394.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance . Evanston: Row Peterson.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (2), 203–210.
Glasford, D. E., Pratto, F., & Dovidio, J. F. (2008). Intragroup dissonance: Responses to ingroup violation of personal values. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (4), 1057–1064. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.Jesp.2007.10.004 .
Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2002). Testing the action-based model of cognitive dissonance: The effect of action orientation on postdecisional attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28 (6), 711–723.
Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2005). Cognitive dissonance in groups: The consequences of disagreement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88 (1), 22–37.
McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., Hogg, M. A., Manstead, A. S. R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003). I’m a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7 (3), 214–224.
McKimmie, B. M., Terry, D. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2009). Dissonance reduction in the context of group membership: The role of metaconsistency. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 13 (2), 103–119. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014554 .
Norton, M. I., Monin, B., Cooper, J., & Hogg, M. A. (2003). Vicarious dissonance: Attitude change from the inconsistency of others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 (1), 47–62. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.1.47 .
Prasad, J. (1935). The psychology of rumour: A study relating to the great Indian earthquake of 1934. British Journal of Psychology, General Section, 1 , 1–15.
Robertson, T., & Reicher, S. (1997). Threats to self and the multiple inconsistencies of forced compliance. Social Psychological Review, 1 (1), 1–15.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms . New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 21, pp. 261–302). San Diego: Academic.
Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37 (3), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1006/Jesp.2000.1446 .
Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1981). Conformity and counterattitudinal behavior: The effect of social support on attitude change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (5), 876–889.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.). (1978). Differentiation between social groups . London: Academic.
Tedeschi, J. T., Schlenker, B. R., & Bonoma, T. V. (1971). Cognitive dissonance: Private ratiocination or public spectacle? American Psychologist, 26 , 685–695.
Tetlock, P. E., & Manstead, A. S. R. (1985). Impression management versus intrapsychic explanations in social psychology: A useful dichotomy? Psychological Review, 92 , 59–72.
Zanna, M. P., & Sande, G. N. (1987). The effects of collective actions on the attitudes of individual group members: A dissonance analysis. In Social influence: The Ontario Symposium (vol. 5, pp. 151–163).
Zimbardo, P. G., Weisenberg, M., Firestone, R., & Levy, B. (1965). Communicator effectiveness in producing public conformity and private attitude change. Journal of Personality, 33 , 233–255.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Blake M. McKimmie
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Blake M. McKimmie .
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
Oakland University, Rochester, MI, USA
Virgil Zeigler-Hill
Todd K. Shackelford
Section Editor information
Wilfrid Laurier University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Christian Jordan
Rights and permissions
Reprints and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this entry
Cite this entry.
McKimmie, B.M. (2020). Cognitive Dissonance Theory. In: Zeigler-Hill, V., Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1121
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_1121
Published : 22 April 2020
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-319-24610-9
Online ISBN : 978-3-319-24612-3
eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences
Share this entry
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
- Foundations
- Write Paper
Search form
- Experiments
- Anthropology
- Self-Esteem
- Social Anxiety
- Psychology >
Cognitive Dissonance Experiment
The Cognitive Dissonance Experiment is based on the theory of cognitive dissonance proposed by Leon Festinger in the year 1957: People hold many different cognitions about their world, e.g. about their environment and their personalities.
This article is a part of the guide:
- Social Psychology Experiments
- Milgram Experiment
- Bobo Doll Experiment
- Stanford Prison Experiment
- Asch Experiment
Browse Full Outline
- 1 Social Psychology Experiments
- 2.1 Asch Figure
- 3 Bobo Doll Experiment
- 4 Good Samaritan Experiment
- 5 Stanford Prison Experiment
- 6.1 Milgram Experiment Ethics
- 7 Bystander Apathy
- 8 Sherif’s Robbers Cave
- 9 Social Judgment Experiment
- 10 Halo Effect
- 11 Thought-Rebound
- 12 Ross’ False Consensus Effect
- 13 Interpersonal Bargaining
- 14 Understanding and Belief
- 15 Hawthorne Effect
- 16 Self-Deception
- 17 Confirmation Bias
- 18 Overjustification Effect
- 19 Choice Blindness
- 20.1 Cognitive Dissonance
- 21.1 Social Group Prejudice
- 21.2 Intergroup Discrimination
- 21.3 Selective Group Perception
In an event wherein some of these cognitions clash, an unsettled state of tension occurs and this is called cognitive dissonance.
Within the same theory, Festinger suggests that every person has innate drives to keep all his cognitions in a harmonious state and avoid a state of tension or dissonance. If a person encounters a state of dissonance, the discomfort brought by the conflict of cognition leads to an alteration in one of the involved cognitions to reduce the conflict and bring a harmonious state once again.
The Classic Experiment of Leon Festinger
Deception is the cornerstone of the experiment conceived by Leon Festinger in the year 1959. He hoped to exhibit cognitive dissonance in an experiment which was cleverly disguised as a performance experiment.
Initially, subjects will be told that they will be participating in a two-hour experiment. Participants will be briefed that the experiment aims to observe the relationship between expectations and the actual experience of a task. With no other introduction about the experiment, the subject will be shown the first task which involves putting 12 spools into a tray, emptying it again, refilling the tray and so on.
The subject will be instructed to do this for thirty minutes. After the said time, the experimenter will approach the subject and ask him to turn 48 square pegs a quarter turn in a clockwise direction, then another quarter, and so on. Bored to hell, the subject must finish the task. The subjects will be advised to work on both experiments on their own preferred speed. While the subject is doing the tasks, the experimenter acts as if recording the progress of the subject and timing him accordingly.
After finishing the two tasks, the subjects will be debriefed.
The experimenter will tell the subject that the experiment contains two separate groups. In one group, the group you were in, subjects were only told instructions to accomplish the tasks and very little about the experiment. The other group however, was given a thorough introduction about the experiment. Subjects in the other group were also briefed by a student we've hired who also finished the task so they have accurate expectations about the experiment.
Up to this point of the experiment, all the treatment conditions were identical. Divergence occurs after this point; conditions divide into Control , One Dollar and Twenty Dollars.
The following step of the experimenter is the master deception of all. After debriefing the subject, he then acts as if he is very nervous and it is the first time that he will do this.
He then tells the subjects that the other group needs someone who will give them a background about the experiment. For some reason, the student the experimenters hired was not available for the given day. The subject will be told that he will be given (One Dollar or Twenty Dollars) if he will do the request. After agreeing, the subject will be handed a piece of paper containing the vital points that he needs to impart to the next subjects of the other groups. The notes include: It was very enjoyable, very exciting, I had a lot of fun. I enjoyed myself. It was very interesting. It was really intriguing.
After this part, all the treatment conditions will be proceeding similarly again.
After briefing the subjects in the other group, the subject will be interviewed to know his thoughts about the experiment. The questions include:
- Were the tasks interesting and enjoyable? Would you rate how you feel about them on a scale from -5 to +5 where -5 means they were extremely dull and boring, +5 means they were extremely interesting and enjoyable, and zero means they were neutral.
- Did the experiment give you an opportunity to learn about your own ability to perform these tasks? Would you rate how you feel about this on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means you learned nothing and 10 means you learned a great deal.
- Do you think the results of the experiment may have scientific value? Would you rate your opinion on this matter on a scale from 0 to 10 where 0 means the results have no scientific value or importance and 10 means they have a great deal of value and importance.
- Would you have any desire to participate in another similar experiment? Would you rate your desire to participate in a similar experiment again on a scale from -5 to +5, where -5 means you would definitely dislike to participate, +5 means you would definitely like to participate, and 0 means you have no particular feeling.
Results of the Experiment
Questions in Interview | Control | One Dollar | Twenty Dollars |
---|---|---|---|
How enjoyable tasks were | -0.45 | 1.35 | -0.05 |
How much you learned | 3.08 | 2.80 | 3.15 |
Scientific importance | 5.60 | 6.45 | 5.18 |
Would participate in similar experiment | -0.62 | 1.20 | -0.25 |
The most relevant of all these data is the first row, how enjoyable the tasks were since we are looking at cognitive dissonance . Since the tasks were purposefully crafted to be monotonous and boring, the control group averaged -0.45. On the other hand, the One Dollar group showed a significantly higher score with +1.35. The resulting dissonance in the subjects was somehow reduced by persuading themselves that the tasks were indeed interesting. Comparing this result to the results from the Twenty Dollar group, we see a significantly lower score in the Twenty Dollar group -0.05.
Conclusions
Two conclusions were obtained from the results.
First, if a person is induced to do or say something which is contrary to his private opinion, there will be a tendency for him to change his opinion so as to bring it into correspondence with what he has done or said.
Second, the larger the pressure used to change one's private opinion, beyond the minimum needed to change it, the weaker will be the above-mentioned tendency. This is clearly evident in the results of the Twenty Dollar group, the experimenters obtained a lower score since they used a large amount of pressure compared to One Dollar which can be considered as the minimum pressure needed to make the change of opinion.
- Psychology 101
- Flags and Countries
- Capitals and Countries
Explorable.com (Jan 13, 2009). Cognitive Dissonance Experiment. Retrieved Sep 01, 2024 from Explorable.com: https://explorable.com/cognitive-dissonance-experiment
You Are Allowed To Copy The Text
The text in this article is licensed under the Creative Commons-License Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) .
This means you're free to copy, share and adapt any parts (or all) of the text in the article, as long as you give appropriate credit and provide a link/reference to this page.
That is it. You don't need our permission to copy the article; just include a link/reference back to this page. You can use it freely (with some kind of link), and we're also okay with people reprinting in publications like books, blogs, newsletters, course-material, papers, wikipedia and presentations (with clear attribution).
Want to stay up to date? Follow us!
Save this course for later.
Don't have time for it all now? No problem, save it as a course and come back to it later.
Footer bottom
- Privacy Policy
- Subscribe to our RSS Feed
- Like us on Facebook
- Follow us on Twitter
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance theory after 70 years, some common misunderstandings..
Posted July 3, 2019
- What Is Cognitive Dissonance?
- Find a therapist near me
I feel a bit of dissonance over writing this post.
My newly edited book on dissonance, Cognitive Dissonance: Re-examining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology , is an update of the book Jud Mills and I edited in 1999. The publisher, the American Psychological Association, requested that I do a second edition, because the first was out of print, and it had sold well. Unfortunately, Jud passed away about 10 years ago, so this new book was done without his expert collaboration .
So, why do I feel dissonance over writing a post promoting this new book? I guess it’s because my parents taught me to not act in a self-promoting way. I still value not acting in a self-promoting way, so I feel dissonance about promoting my new book. I will say more about this later.
The theory of cognitive dissonance was originally presented by Festinger at a very abstract level, and as such, it applies to a wide range of psychological situations. The new book reviews all the ways in which dissonance theory has been extended, from mathematical models to neuroscience and beyond.
In this post, I’ll address some of the most common misunderstandings of the theory. I hope to continue this discussion in future posts.
In my mind, the most common misunderstanding of dissonance theory is that it applies only to situations in which individuals say (or write) something counter to what they believe or value. I often see both psychology textbooks and reviewers of scholarly manuscripts making this claim.
I suspect this misunderstanding results in part from the fact that the majority of highly cited research on the theory used the forced compliance (or induced compliance) paradigm, which is based on the classic experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959). In it, participants were paid $1 or $20 to “lie” to the next participant and say that boring tasks are in fact interesting. This paradigm is also referred to as the counter-attitudinal paradigm .
In this paradigm, participants are provided with few or many reasons for stating something that they do not believe or value, and participants who make the statement and are given few reasons for doing so often change their attitudes to be more consistent with their statement. The “reasons” have typically been operationalized by giving participants different amounts of money or perceived choice. So, for example, participants in Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) were paid either $1 or $20 to make the counter-attitudinal statement. Participants in Harmon-Jones et al. (1996) were given the sense that they chose or did not choose to make the counter-attitudinal statement. That is, in the perceived high choice condition, participants were subtly induced to write the statement, but reminded that it was their choice to do so, whereas participants in the perceived low choice condition were told that they were randomly assigned to write the statement.
Both of these types of manipulations vary the number of consonant cognitions for engaging in counter-attitudinal behavior. You have fewer consonant cognitions for engaging in the behavior when you are paid less money or subtly induced by the experiment to make the statement.
But dissonance occurs in several other ways. Dissonance results from making difficult decisions, being exposed to information that challenges your views, and from engaging in unpleasant effort. Research testing the theory has used each of these types of situations, although these situations have been used less often than the forced compliance paradigm.
Another common misconception about the theory is that dissonance must be reduced. That is, after persons engage in counter-attitudinal behavior (for few reasons), they must change their attitudes to be more consistent with their recent behavior. Again, I suspect part of the reason for this misconception is that the majority of published research has focused on this outcome of attitude change. But individuals can reduce dissonance in a wide variety of ways, or they can experience dissonance and never reduce it. I, for example, still feel dissonance over writing this blog post promoting my new edited book. I do hope you will read it, and if you have any suggestions for how I should go about reducing dissonance, please share them.
The new edition of Cognitive Dissonance: Re-examining a Pivotal Theory in Psychology contains 12 chapters and three appendices. Six chapters are new to this book; two are reprints of chapters published in the 1999 edition; and four are revisions of chapters published in the earlier edition. The appendices are reprinted from the 1999 book. One contains Leon Festinger ’s (1954) first “Very Preliminary and Highly Tentative Draft” on dissonance theory (which had never been published prior to 1999). One contains the transcript from Leon Festinger’s (1987) last public speech about dissonance theory. And the final one contains Jud Mills’s historical note on the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) forced compliance experiment, in which he corrects some misconceptions.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2) , 203-210.
Harmon-Jones, E., Brehm, J. W., Greenberg, J., Simon, L., & Nelson, D. E. (1996). Evidence that the production of aversive consequences is not necessary to create cognitive dissonance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1) , 5-16.
Eddie Harmon-Jones, Ph.D. is a Professor of Psychology at The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, whose research is focused on social, affective, and motivational neuroscience.
- Find a Therapist
- Find a Treatment Center
- Find a Psychiatrist
- Find a Support Group
- Find Online Therapy
- United States
- Brooklyn, NY
- Chicago, IL
- Houston, TX
- Los Angeles, CA
- New York, NY
- Portland, OR
- San Diego, CA
- San Francisco, CA
- Seattle, WA
- Washington, DC
- Asperger's
- Bipolar Disorder
- Chronic Pain
- Eating Disorders
- Passive Aggression
- Personality
- Goal Setting
- Positive Psychology
- Stopping Smoking
- Low Sexual Desire
- Relationships
- Child Development
- Self Tests NEW
- Therapy Center
- Diagnosis Dictionary
- Types of Therapy
Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.
- Emotional Intelligence
- Gaslighting
- Affective Forecasting
- Neuroscience
Psychology Concepts
Festinger and carlsmith study, cognitive dissonance.
Leon Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith conducted an experiment in 1959 in order to demonstrate the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. Students were asked to perform a boring task and then to convince someone else that it was interesting. The researchers theorized that people would experience a dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, “I told someone that the task was interesting”, and “I actually found it boring.”
COMMENTS
In Festinger and Carlsmith's experiment, 11 of the 71 responses were considered invalid for a couple of reasons. ... Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211.
In an intriguing experiment, Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) asked participants to perform a series of dull tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). As you can imagine, participant's attitudes toward this task were highly negative. ... Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. The ...
Leon Festinger & James M. Carlsmith (1959) First published in Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-210. ... We will have more to say concerning this explanation in discussing the results of our experiment. Kelman (1953) tried to pursue the matter further. He reasoned that if the person is induced to make an overt statement ...
Leon Festinger and James M. Carlsmith (1959) conducted an experiment entitled "Cognitive Consequences of Forced Compliance". This study involved 71 male students from Stanford University, of which 11 students were disqualified.The students were asked to perform a tedious task involving using one hand to turn small spools a quarter clockwise turn.
Leon Festinger - Cognitive Dissonance, Social Psychology, Theory: While at the University of Minnesota, Festinger read about a cult that believed that the end of the world was at hand. A woman, "Mrs. Keech," reported receiving messages from extraterrestrial aliens that the world would end in a great flood on a specific date. She attracted a group of followers who left jobs, schools, and ...
Festinger and Carlsmith's (1959) experiment upset the conventional assumptions. They established dissonance by having participants publicly rave about the pleasant-ness of a task that, in fact, had been quite dull and bor-ing. The contradiction between their true attitude about the boring task and their statement that it was interesting
In 1959, Festinger and his colleague James Carlsmith devised an experiment to test people's levels of cognitive dissonance. They gathered a group of male students at Stanford University as their ...
Atest of some hypotheses generated by Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance, viz., that "if a person is induced to do or say something which is contrary to his private opinion, there will be a tendency for him to change his opinion so as to bring it into correspondence with what he has done or said. The larger the pressure used to elicit the overt behavior… the weaker will be the ...
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211. ... In the typical dissonance experiment, all eggs are usually put in one dependent measure, like attitude change. What happens on the way? The entire inner world of how accom-
The first experimental study designed to test this idea (see Festinger and Carlsmith 1959) supported Festinger's predictions. At the core of Festinger's theory was the idea that cognitive consistency, rather than reinforcement, was an important determinant of attitudes and behavior. To understand why Festinger thought this, it is necessary ...
As presented by Festinger in 1957, dissonance theory began by postulating that pairs of cognitions (elements of knowledge) can be relevant or irrelevant to one another. If two cognitions are relevant to one another, they are either consonant or dissonant. Two cognitions are consonantif one follows from the other, and they are dissonantif the ...
e magnitude of dissonance becomes smaller. 4. One way in which the dissonance can be reduced is for the person to change his private opinion so as to bring. it into correspondence with what he has said. One would conse-quently expect to observe such opinion change after a person has been forced or induced to.
The Classic Experiment of Leon Festinger. Deception is the cornerstone of the experiment conceived by Leon Festinger in the year 1959. He hoped to exhibit cognitive dissonance in an experiment which was cleverly disguised as a performance experiment. Initially, subjects will be told that they will be participating in a two-hour experiment.
And the final one contains Jud Mills's historical note on the classic Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) forced compliance experiment, in which he corrects some misconceptions. References Festinger ...
Discusses critiques of the classic experiment of L. Festinger and J. M. Carlsmith (1959) on role playing and attitude change, with emphasis on the observations of J. B. Rijsman (2000). The importance of perceived choice concerning role-playing behavior, money as a means of inducing compliance, and the importance of perceived choice concerning attitude-creating behavior are examined.
Festinger and James M. Carlsmith published their classic cognitive dissonance experiment in 1959. [61] In the experiment, subjects were asked to perform an hour of boring and monotonous tasks (i.e., repeatedly filling and emptying a tray with 12 spools and turning 48 square pegs in a board clockwise). ... Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959 ...
Leon Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith conducted an experiment in 1959 in order to demonstrate the phenomenon of cognitive dissonance. Students were asked to perform a boring task and then to convince someone else that it was interesting. The researchers theorized that people would experience a dissonance between the conflicting cognitions, "I ...
For example, Elliot Aronson (1969) argues that people wish to appear reasonable to themselves and suggests that in Festinger and Carlsmith's (1959) experiment, if "dissonance exists, it is because the individual's behavior is inconsistent with his self-concept" (p. 27). Aronson asserts that the Stanford students' dissonance that resulted from ...
Although the experiment took place in 1956 the results received a widespread atrtention after appearing in an academic journal in 1959. See :-Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58, 203-211
Festinger and Carlsmith's experiment upset the conventional assumptions. They established dissonance by having participants publicly rave about the pleasantness of a task that, in fact, had been quite dull and boring. ... Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social ...
1999; Wicklund & Brehm, 1976). In 1959, Festinger and Carlsmith published one of the first tests of the theory. Rijsman's Criticisms Rijsman offers a number of novel and insightful criticisms of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959). First, he suggests that the general description given of this experiment is inaccurate. He notes that the
This document summarizes an experiment by Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) that tested the cognitive dissonance theory proposed by Festinger (1957). The experiment varied the amount of reward given to subjects for making statements that contradicted their private opinions. It was predicted that larger rewards would produce smaller subsequent changes in private opinion, as larger rewards would ...
Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. L. Festinger, J. M. Carlsmith. Published in Journal of Abnormal… 28 January 2011. Psychology. TLDR. The theory behind this experiment is that the person who is forced to improvise a speech convinces himself, and some evidence is presented, which is not altogether conclusive, in support of this ...