CHAPTER 16
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY
Outline:
I. Dissonance: Discord between behavior and belief.
A. Identified by Leon Festinger, cognitive dissonance is the distressing mental state
that people feel when they find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they
know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold.
B. Humans have a basic need to avoid dissonance and establish consistency.
C. The tension of dissonance motivates the person to change either the behavior or the
belief.
D. The more important the issue and the greater the discrepancy, the higher the
magnitude of dissonance.
II. Health-conscious smokers: Dealing with dissonance.
A. When Festinger first published his theory, he chose the topic of smoking to illustrate
the concept of dissonance.
B. Perhaps the most typical way for the smoker to avoid anguish is to trivialize or
simply deny the link between smoking and cancer.
C. Festinger noted that almost all of our actions are more entrenched than the
thoughts we have about them.
III. Reducing dissonance between attitudes and actions.
A. Hypothesis #1: Selective exposure prevents dissonance.
2. People select information that lined up with what they already believed and
ignored facts or ideas that ran counter to those beliefs.
4. Warm personal relationships are the best environment for considering
discrepant views.
B. Hypothesis #2: Post decision dissonance creates a need for reassurance.
1. The more important the issue, the more dissonance.
3. The greater the difficulty in reversing the decision once it has been made, the
more dissonance.
C. Hypothesis #3: Minimal justification for action induces a shift in attitude.
1. Conventional wisdom suggests that to change behavior, you must first alter
attitude.
3. In addition, he predicts that attitude change and dissonance reduction depend
on providing only a minimum justification for the change in behavior.
IV. A classic experiment: “Would I lie for a dollar?”
A. Festinger’s minimal justification hypothesis is counterintuitive.
B. The Stanford $1/$20 experiment supported the minimal justification hypothesis
because subjects who received a very small reward demonstrated a change in
attitude.
V. Three state-of-the-art revisions: The cause and effect of dissonance.
A. Most persuasion researchers today subscribe to one of three revisions of Festinger’s
original theory. A process model of cognitive dissonance helps us undersand the
three:
Attitude/behavior inconsistency → Dissonance created → Attitude change →
Dissonance reduced
B. Self-consistency: the rationalizing animal.
1. Elliot Aronson argued that dissonance is caused by psychological rather than
logical inconsistency.
3. Humans aren’t rational, they are rationalizing.
5. The amount of dissonance a person can experience is directly proportional to the
effort he or she has invested in the behavior.
C. Personal responsibility for bad outcomes (the new look).
1. Joel Cooper argues that we experience dissonance when we believe our actions
have unnecessarily hurt another person.
2. Cooper concludes that dissonance is a state of arousal caused by behaving in
such a way as to feel personally responsible for bringing about an aversive event.
D. Self-affirmation to dissipate dissonance.
2. He believes that high self-esteem is a resource for dissonance reduction.
3. Steele asserts that most people are motivated to maintain a self-image of moral
and adaptive adequacy.
E. These three revisions of Festinger’s theory are not mutually exclusive.
VI. Theory into practice: Persuasion through dissonance.
A. Festinger’s theory offers practical advice for those who wish to affect attitude
change as a product of dissonance.
VII. Critique: Dissonance over dissonance.
A. Cognitive dissonance is one of the few theories in this book that has achieved name
recognition within popular culture as people have found it practically useful.
B. Where the theory falls short is relative simplicity.
C. Bem claims that self-perception is a much simpler explanation than cognitive
dissonance.
D. The theory has also received knocks for how difficult it is to actually observe
dissonance.
E. If researchers can’t observe dissonance, then the theory’s core hypotheses aren’t
testable—a big problem for a scientific theory.
F. Patricia Devine applauds researchers who have attempted to gauge the arousal
component of dissonance.
G. The most promising attempts to develop a dissonance thermometer have used
neuroimaging.
2. Even so, actually observing it is difficult and expensive, so even if the theory is
testable, it certainly isn’t simple.
H. Despite detractors, cognitive dissonance theory has energized objective scholars of
communication for 50 years.
Key Names and Terms
Leon Festinger
A former Stanford University social psychologist and creator of the theory of cognitive
dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance
The distressing mental state caused by inconsistency between a person’s two beliefs or
a belief and an action.
Selective Exposure
The tendency people have to avoid information that would create cognitive dissonance
because it’s incompatible with their current beliefs.
Postdecision Dissonance
Strong doubts experienced after making an important, close-call decision that is difficult
to reverse.
Minimal Justification Hypothesis
A claim that the best way to stimulate an attitude change in others is to offer just
enough incentive to elicit counterattitudinal behavior.
Compliance
Public conformity to another’s expectation without necessarily having a private
conviction that matches the behavior.
A hypothetical, reliable gauge of the dissonance a person feels as a result of
inconsistency.
Self-perception Theory
The claim that we determine our attitudes the same way that outside observers do–by
observing our behavior; an alternative to cognitive dissonance theory.
Elliot Aronson
A University of California social psychologist who argued that cognitive dissonance is
caused by psychological—rather than logical—inconsistency.
Joel Cooper
A Princeton University psychologist who argues that dissonance is caused by the
knowledge that one’s actions have unnecessarily hurt another person.
Claude Steele
A Stanford University psychologist who argues that high self-esteem is a resource for
dissonance reduction.
Patricia Devine
Principle Changes
This chapter has been edited for clarity and precision. For the bulk of the chapter, no
new material has been added. However, in the critique that concludes the chapter, the
comments have been reordered and new research introduced that suggests cognitive
dissonance theory is testable, even if that is difficult to do.
Kick-off Questions & Interaction Starters
• If you continue to check sale prices after you’ve already bought something, do changes
make you feel better…. Or worse?
Suggestions for Discussion
Minimal justification hypothesis
In my experience, this is a difficult chapter to teach because at least one central tenet
of the theory is hard to grasp and/or is counterintuitive. In particular, the minimal justification
hypothesis perplexes students who have come to understand that more is better than less. As
the examples provided in the chapter, seeking to determine if other explanations for the
reported behavior are more compelling than those offered by cognitive dissonance. The results
of Festinger’s famous $1/$20 experiment can be explained in a number of ways. Which
explanation do you find most satisfying? Festinger and Carlsmith’s findings are based on a
belief that the $1 liars really think they’re telling the truth when they claim to have enjoyed the
The value of a counterintuitive theory
To alter the pedagogical perspective slightly, you may wish to propose to your students
that cognitive dissonance’s counterintuitive core may be its greatest strength. In a field that is
sometimes perceived as being driven by mere common sense and traditional wisdom, it is
important to stress moments when knowledge and theory building work against the grain of
Cognitive dissonance doesn’t explain everything
I suggest that you speculate with your students about the fact that cognitive dissonance
may not account for situations in which individuals act rationally, decisively, and on occasion
even heroically to eliminate discrepancies between their beliefs and their behaviors. Many
people strive to think through the inconsistencies in their lives, and these reason-driven
struggles lead individuals to give up destructive habits such as substance abuse, as well as
join or leave organizations, movements, and churches. Others terminate relationships they
believe to be destructive. In extreme cases, when individuals cannot find ways to justify their
actions, they commit suicide, an act that offers a particularly strong challenge to the
A negative view of human nature?
To put it another way, this theory of behavior and belief does not seem to be built on a
particularly flattering or optimistic view of our species, but rather a Hobbesian foundation of
human weakness, deficiency, and manipulation. Without falling into rationalization (and thus
acting out of the very mind-set we seek to understand), can one advocate cognitive dissonance
theory and still maintain a positive view of the species and the process of influence? The
problem is compounded when one considers the hierarchical emphasis on manipulating
rewards and punishments inherent in the theory. Are the great majority of humans mere
pigeons, readily handled by the elite cognitive dissonance specialists among us? Does
successful persuasion constitute nothing more honorable or value-centered than cagily
controlling behavior, stimulating the rationalization process in others by dropping the right-
sized feed pellet at the right moment? Such challenges will help enliven your discussion and
show your students that the implications of theories truly matter.
“Fake it ‘til you make it,”
If students are perplexed by the counterintuitive proposition that behavior causes
attitude, rather than the other way around, you may wish to mention that Alcoholics
Anonymous successfully employs this premise to help with recovery. Their motto, “Fake it ‘til
$1/ $20 Experiment
Just a word about inflation is in order. The $1/$20 experiment was conducted in 1959.
$20 may not seem like much, but one needs to consider the relative buying power of $1 and
$20. When I teach this chapter, we discuss exactly how far a dollar would go. The U.S. Bureau
of Labor Statistics offers a calculator for the relative buying power on their website
(http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl). The minimum wage in 1959 was $1. In 1959, a loaf of
Revising the $1/$20 study
Initially, I was somewhat confused by the section of the chapter entitled “Three State of
the Art Revisions: The Cause and Effect of Dissonance.” In the discussion of the major
reinterpretations of the classic $1/$20 experiment, the authors do not explicitly mention the
way each scholar theorized both the $1 and the $20 responses to the lie. This apparent
omission is due to the fact that all of the theorists involved would interpret the $20 response in
Falsifiability
Another troublesome section of the chapter for students to grasp is the theory’s trouble
with falsifiability despite the famous research trial. While the $1/$20 experiment is a hallmark
in social psychology, it does not address the problematic questions, “How do we know
dissonance existed in the first place?” and “Did dissonance cause the change in attitude?”
The theory’s inability to validate the existence of dissonance and to document its causal impact
creates the appearance of a never-miss-shot. For your students, this idea might take some
unpacking. If something is tested, doesn’t that mean it is testable and as such, falsifiable? In
the case of cognitive dissonance, this is not necessarily true.
You may also want to take some time to remind your students of the important
relationship between theory and research. Since the line between the two is frequently and
insightfully crossed in this book, we would encourage classroom speculation in this area.
Cognitive dissonance and the $1/$20 experiment are inextricably linked—to know one is to
Connection to communication and the other influence theories
An additional difficulty with this chapter is that the connection between cognitive
dissonance and communication may seem tenuous to many students. Does social influence
by evoking cognitive dissonance constitute persuasion, or are you putting the person in an
uncomfortable position and then self-persuasion takes over? You might ask your class to
speculate on which of the three influence theories requires the most activity on the part of the
persuader? Which is most ethical?
Sample Application Log
Laura
I usually like most people, and I feel uncomfortable when I do not like someone or when
someone does not like me. A couple of years ago I was a lifeguard and swim instructor. My
manager was this woman named “Laura.” Laura was rather bossy and very aloof to me. I
worked with her for eight hours a day, so I did not know how to respond to how she treated me.
I wanted to tell her a couple of ungodly words sometimes and tell her what a jerk she was.
Exercises and Activities
Different theories of persuasion
If you are following the chapters of the book sequentially, this chapter concludes the section on
theories exclusively devoted to persuasion. As noted elsewhere in this manual, I want to
encourage students to value theory plurality and embrace many theories for their unique
contributions. In order to do that and with the added benefit of helping students classify
theories, I encourage students to create a running tally of the theories of persuasion (both
those covered in this section and other parts of the book) and how each theory might approach
the question, “how is a person persuaded?” For example, they might include EVT (through
unanticipated actions), CMM (by created realities), social judgment (by slow, incremental
Interviewing people who hold beliefs contrary to popular opinion
One way to think about cognitive dissonance is the mental stress that comes when new
information is introduced that seems to contradict a previously held belief. Although some
people are known for their ability to reassess continually their beliefs in light of new data, many
individuals will consistently resolve the conflict by discounting the new information. The latter
group follows the rationalizing pattern central to the theory featured in this chapter. An
interesting take-home exercise is to ask your students to interview individuals who strongly
endorse beliefs that have been pummeled by damaging or discrediting information. In many
cases, these beliefs concern the innocence or goodness of public figures whose reputations
have been tainted by strong evidence of misconduct. On the national scene, such people
include Richard Nixon (Watergate), Oliver North (Iran-Contra), Ted Kennedy (Chappaquiddick),
The dissonance in us all
If you really want to push this issue, it can be useful to show that virtually all of us
reduce tension through rationalization in some aspects of our lives. For example, ask students
to explain how they can have plenty to eat while around the world millions of people are
starving. How they can enjoy good medical care when millions suffer from curable diseases?
How they can consume vast amounts of energy for recreational purposes when most people of
the world toil to survive? How they can eat food and wear clothes produced by underpaid
Feature film illustrations
The classic 1942 film Casablanca, it seems to me, exemplifies aspects of cognitive
dissonance theory. Victor Laszlo, who is truly heroic at every stage in the movie, requires no
external justification to do the right thing because he is inherently noble. Rick and Ilsa,
however, are not inherently so heroic. Because their natural tendency is to put their selfish
love affair before the Resistance, they must act themselves into adopting heroic, self–
sacrificing attitudes. Rick gives up his seat on the plane out of Casablanca to Victor–spurning
share.
Many of your students will be familiar with the modern classic Legally Blonde (2001).
Elle Woods’ motivation to go to Harvard Law is her attraction to Warner. When the pressures of
law school increase and her relationship with Warner is over, her decision to remain at Harvard
must be re-examined. If it’s not about Warner, than why is she here? Despite outward
appearance and the opinions of others, Elle is a rational being and her cognitive dissonance is
resolved when her attitude towards law school changes—not only does she belong here, but
she’s going to be the best.
increases, however, she develops a firm understanding of and dedication to the inherent value
of the union itself. Norma Rae’s initial contact with Reuben provides the minimal justification
for her involvement, and her endless activity on behalf of the union brings about a decided
change in belief. This film also provides a good illustration of symbolic interactionism. Norma
Rae becomes the self-confident, socially responsible person that Reuben consistently reflects
back to her. Finally, the developing friendship between Norma Rae and Reuben exemplifies
the principles of uncertainty reduction theory.
Further Resources
For an intriguing application of cognitive dissonance theory to HIV/AIDS prevention, see
Richard M. Perloff, Persuading People to Have Safer Sex: Applications of Social Science to the
AIDS Crisis, Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, 2001, pp. 82-83.
Theoretical considerations
Amanda S. Hinojosa, William L. Gardner, H. Jack Walker, Claudia Cogliser, and Daniel Gullifor,
“A Review of Cognitive Dissonance Theory in Management Research: Opportunities for
Further Development,” Journal of Management, Vol. 43, 2017, pp. 170-199.
Applied research using cognitive dissonance:
Chyng Feng Sun and Erica Scharrer, “Staying True to Disney: College Students’ Resistance to
Criticism of The Little Mermaid,” Communication Review, Vol. 7, 2004, pp. 35-55.
Mary E. Kaplar and Anne K. Gordon, “The Enigma of Altruistic Lying: Perspective Differences in
What Motivates and Justifies Lie Telling Within Romantic Relationships,” Personal
Copyright © 2018 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without the
prior written consent of McGraw-Hill Education.
Blake M. McKimmie, “Cognitive Dissonance in Groups,” Social & Personality Psychology
Compass, Vol. 9, 2015, pp. 202–212.
Julie A. Schumacher and Amy M. Smith Slep, “Attitudes and Dating Aggression: A Cognitive
Dissonance Approach,” Prevention Science, Vol. 5, 2004, pp. 231-243.
Mark Ward Sr., “Cognition, Culture, and Charity: Sociolinguistics and ‘Donor Dissonance’ in a
Baptist Denomination,” Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary & Nonprofit
Organizations, Vol. 26, 2015, pp. 574-603.
Ethical Considerations
Blake M. McKimmie, Deborah J. Terry, Michael A. Hogg, Anthony S. R. Manstead, Russell
Spears, and Bertjan Doosje, “I’m a Hypocrite, but So is Everyone Else: Group Support
and the Reduction of Cognitive Dissonance,” Group Dynamics, Vol. 7, 2003, pp. 214–
224.