Selectivity of perception cognitive dissonance L Festinger. Are there systems free from dissonant relationships? How to avoid dissonance

Main hypotheses of the theory

due to logical inconsistency;
“due to cultural customs”;
in the event that an individual opinion is part of a broader opinion;
due to the discrepancy between past experience and the present situation.

Therefore, people are ready to justify their delusions: a person who has committed an offense or mistake is inclined to justify himself in his thoughts, gradually shifting his beliefs about what happened towards the fact that what happened was actually not so terrible. In this way, the individual “regulates” his thinking in order to reduce the conflict within himself.

Degree of dissonance

In various situations that arise in everyday life, dissonance can increase or decrease - it all depends on the problem that confronts the person.

Thus, the degree of dissonance will be minimal if a person, for example, gives money to a beggar on the street, who (apparently) does not really need alms. On the contrary, the degree of dissonance will increase many times over if a person faces a serious exam and he does not try to prepare for it.

Dissonance can (and does) arise in any situation when a person has to make a choice. Moreover, the degree of dissonance will increase depending on how important this choice is for the individual.

Reducing dissonance

Preventing and avoiding dissonance

In some cases, an individual can prevent the emergence of dissonance and, as a result, internal discomfort by trying to avoid any negative information regarding his problem. If dissonance has already arisen, then the individual can avoid increasing it by adding one or more cognitive elements “to the cognitive scheme” instead of the existing negative element (which gives rise to dissonance). Thus, the individual will be interested in seeking information that would support his choice (his decision) and, ultimately, would weaken or completely eliminate dissonance, while avoiding sources that will increase it. However, often such behavior of an individual can lead to negative consequences: a person may develop a fear of dissonance or prejudice, which is a dangerous factor influencing the individual’s worldview.

It is quite understandable that it is much easier for a person to agree with the existing state of affairs, adjusting his internal attitudes according to the current situation, instead of continuing to be tormented by the question of whether he did the right thing. Often dissonance arises as a consequence of making important decisions. Choosing from two equally tempting alternatives is not easy for a person, however, having finally made this choice, a person often begins to feel “dissonant cognitions,” that is, the positive aspects of the option that he refused, and the not so positive aspects of the one with than agreed. To suppress (weaken) dissonance, a person tries with all his might to exaggerate the significance of the decision he has made, while simultaneously downplaying the importance of the rejected one. As a result, the other alternative loses all attractiveness in his eyes.

Literature

Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.

See what “Cognitive Dissonance Theory” is in other dictionaries:

cognitive dissonance theory- Etymology. Comes from the Greek. theory research, English cognition knowledge and dissonance discrepancy. Author. L. Festinger. Category. A cognitive theory that explains the features of motivational processes. Specificity. It is logical...

- (from the English cognition knowledge, dissonance inconsistency) a social psychological theory created by the American psychologist L. Festinger, in which logically contradictory knowledge about the same subject is assigned the status of motivation,... ... Psychological Dictionary

Cognitive dissonance theory- – theory of change and formation of attitudes by L. Festinger. * * * social psychological theory (L. Festinger), explaining the illogical behavior of a person in situations of the presence of conflicting information about one object, subject, person. From... ... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology and Pedagogy

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY- a psychological theory that connects a person’s well-being and behavior with the state of the system of knowledge he has. T.k.d. argues that contradictions in a person’s knowledge give rise to a feeling of discomfort and a desire to do whatever it takes... Glossary of terms for psychological counseling

See cognitive dissonance theory in the Psychological Dictionary. THEM. Kondakov. 2000... Great psychological encyclopedia

Cognitive dissonance theory- (lat. cognitio cognition and dissonans dissonant sounding) one of the “theories of correspondence” app. social psychology, put forward by K. Levin’s student L. Festinger (1957), explains the influence of the cognitive system on human perception and behavior... ... Psychology of communication. encyclopedic Dictionary

COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY- Leon Festinger's theory of attitude change, based on the idea that we strive to bring our attitudes into line with each other in order to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Also called dissonance theory... Explanatory dictionary of psychology

Cognitive dissonance theory- (Latin cognitio – knowledge). A widespread theory in Western social psychology that considers interpersonal conflicts as inevitable, an integral part of social existence, the interaction of individuals and groups. It is believed that the conflict... Explanatory dictionary of psychiatric terms

Cognitive dissonance theory- [lat. cognitio cognition and lat. dissonans discordant sounding] one of the concepts of Western social psychology, put forward by the American psychologist L. Festinger (1957) and explaining the influence of the cognitive system on human behavior... ... Psychological Lexicon

Cognitive dissonance is a feeling of psychological discomfort. A person experiences it when there is a collision in his mind of two contradictory knowledge about the same event or object.

People are capable of performing actions that do not correspond to their thoughts. At the same time, actions contradict the beliefs that are part of the value system. In addition, situations arise in which a person becomes an eyewitness to some unpredictable events. In this case, a person commits actions that are contrary to his plans. It's all due to cognitive dissonance.

Examples of situations include the following.

For example, a person has planned a trip out of town and is sure that the weather will be fine. However, just before he leaves, it starts to rain. As a result, a person commits an act that is contrary to his plans - he does not go out of town.

In another case, a certain subject, completely convinced of the uselessness of using an automatic transmission, finds a very convincing article about its advantages. In this case, cognitive dissonance, albeit short-term, is formed on the basis of new knowledge about a subject.

It should be noted that numerous motivational theories began to appear in the works of ancient philosophers. Today there are several dozen of them. According to the latest concepts, the approach is preferred by many authors. In line with this theory, great importance is attached to human consciousness and knowledge.

Among all the theses put forward by the authors, the main one was considered to be the belief that ideas, knowledge, and opinions about events occurring in the world, consequences and causes have a guiding significance in an individual’s behavior. At the same time, knowledge is not considered a simple complex of information. Human ideas, the information he owns, design and program his behavior in the future. Thus, actions and their character depend not only on fixed human needs. Relatively variable ideas about the real world are also of great importance.

The concept of “cognitive dissonance” was proposed by Leon Festinger. By this definition he understood a certain contradiction between cognitions (two or more). The term "cognition" is explained by Festinger as follows: it is any opinion, knowledge or belief that concerns the environment, one's own behavior or oneself.

A person experiences cognitive dissonance in the form of discomfort. A person strives to get rid of this feeling and restore inner harmony.

Cognitive dissonance is also typical for situations where a person has made a difficult decision. In such cases, there is a need to choose between alternative options that are close to each other in attractiveness. After a choice is made, the individual feels discomfort associated with contradictions. In particular, a person thinks that the option he has chosen contains negative features, while at the same time that there was something positive in the rejected solutions. Thus, what is accepted becomes partly bad, but accepted. What is rejected is partially positive. However, it is not accepted.

As studies of the consequences of difficult decisions show, after making, over time, there is an increase in the subjective attractiveness of the chosen option. At the same time, the subjective attractiveness of the rejected solution decreases. In this way, the individual relieves himself of cognitive dissonance by convincing himself that the option he has chosen is not only slightly, but much better than the alternative solutions that were rejected by him.

Cognitive dissonance defines a state of personality characterized by inconsistency and inconsistency of views, beliefs, attitudes and external conditions. The author of the theory and the very concept of cognitive dissonance is L. Festinger. This teaching is based on a person’s desire for a state of mental comfort. Only by following the path of achieving goals and successes does a person receive satisfaction from life. Dissonance is a state of internal discomfort caused by contradictions between stable ideas of the individual and new facts or conditions. This feeling causes a desire to stimulate the process of cognition in order to verify the truth of the new information. Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance provides an explanation for conflict situations that arise in the cognitive system of an individual. The main conflicting ideas in the human mind are religious, ideological, value, emotional and other inconsistencies.

Causes of dissonance

This condition may occur due to the following reasons:

in case of logical inconsistency;
when an individual’s opinion enters into a group opinion;
due to established traditions and customs;
in case of inconsistency between past experience and the new situation.

Modern psychology studies the state of cognitive dissonance in order to explain and study the state of internal inconsistency that occurs in an individual or group of people. An individual, having accumulated a certain life experience, must act contrary to it, according to changed conditions. This causes a feeling of discomfort. To weaken this feeling, a person makes a compromise, trying to smooth out the internal conflict.

An example of cognitive dissonance can be any situation that changes a person’s plans. For example: a person decided to go out of town for a picnic. Before leaving, he saw that it was raining. The man did not expect precipitation; the conditions of his trip changed. Thus, the rain became a source of cognitive dissonance.

It is quite understandable that every person would like to reduce dissonance, and, if possible, eliminate it altogether. This can be achieved in three ways: by changing one's behavioral element, by changing the cognitive elements of external factors, or by introducing new cognitive elements into one's life experience.

A THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

A THEORY OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE by Leon Festinger published in English by Stanford University Press.

This translation is published by arrangement with Stanford University Press, www.sup.org.

* * *

From this book you will learn:

What is cognitive dissonance and how does it occur?

How cognitive dissonance affects our behavior and perception of the world

Why is it difficult for us to give up our beliefs and faith?

Can cognitive dissonance affect decision making?

How are cognitive dissonance and motivation related?

Preface

Dear reader! You are holding the Great Book in front of you. Over the 150 years of independent existence of psychology, a lot of books have been written. It's impossible to read everything. You need to read the best, first of all the classics. And whoever compiled a list of the most influential books in psychology would definitely include this work by Leon Festinger, first published in 1957. Great books never become obsolete.

L. Festinger was born on May 8, 1919 in New York into a Jewish family of emigrants from Russia Alex Festinger and Sarah Solomon, where he became a bachelor in 1939 and a master in 1940 at the University of Iowa, where he began working as a research fellow at the Center studying the child. In 1942 he received a Doctor of Philosophy degree in psychology. His supervisor was Kurt Lewin (there is no doubt the influence of Lewin's field theory and the Gestaltists in general on Festinger's work). During World War II (1942–1945) he served on the Airman Selection and Training Committee at the University of Rochester. In 1945, he joined the work of Lewin’s group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and later, in 1947, after Lewin’s death, he moved with the group to the University of Michigan. In 1951 he worked at the University of Minnesota, and in 1955 he moved to Stanford. And finally, from 1968 until his death in 1989, he was a professor at the New School for Social Research in New York. Throughout his life he received many awards and honors (including the prestigious Outstanding Scientist Award of the American Psychological Association in 1959).

Psychologists usually study the amazing phenomena of our mental life and try to find explanations for them. Great psychologists go further - they see a person behind these phenomena in all his unsolved completeness. Leon Festinger, even among the greatest, stood out for his breadth of interests - he dealt with decision making, the problem of loss of individuality in a group, the ways in which people compare themselves with others, the psychological aspects of the technology of making prehistoric tools, visual perception and eye movement, group dynamics, etc. .

But his main achievement was the creation of the theory of cognitive dissonance.

L. Festinger made a cognitive revolution even before the emergence of cognitive psychology, and in the field of social psychology, which was as far removed from cognitive research as possible. He derived a law: if two elements of thinking contradict each other (are in dissonance), then this prompts the person to behave in a way that reduces the dissonance. The fact that a person strives to live in a rational world and get rid of contradictions was postulated by the philosophers of the New Age. At the end of the 19th century, I. Bernheim, in experiments with post-hypnotic suggestion, demonstrated that a person strives to find a reasonable, even if incorrect, explanation for his own behavior, which - which the person himself did not realize - was suggested to him in hypnosis. Z. Freud observed Bernheim's experiments and described, within the framework of the theory he built, the unconscious mechanisms of a person's struggle with contradictions (among them - repression and rationalization). But the explanations remained largely speculative, and in Freud’s constructions, moreover, with a strong mythological flavor.

Festinger shows in specially designed conditions: if a person commits an act that contradicts his beliefs, then cognitive dissonance arises. To eliminate dissonance, external justification is used (I was forced, ordered, or paid well). But if there are few reasons for external justification, then a person looks for an internal justification for this action, for example, without realizing it, he changes his own beliefs, i.e., as Festinger says, he smoothes out cognitive dissonance. The ideas and experimental designs he generated made such a strong impression that they gave rise to a wave of followers who carried out amazingly ingenious experimental research (see, for example, the review works of E. Aronson, who, precisely under the influence of the book that you are holding before your eyes, came to the decision to study social psychology).

I will give an example showing the heuristic significance of Festinger’s theory even in the zone where he himself most likely would not have expected to see the manifestation of his theoretical constructs. In our research at St. Petersburg University, we found that if a person makes mistakes in simple cognitive tasks (mistakes when adding numbers, makes typos, etc.), then it turns out that he tends to repeat his own mistakes, even if he himself does not notice. The effect of repeating mistakes clearly resembles the smoothing out of cognitive dissonance - having made a mistake, a person, without realizing it, seems to make a decision: since under the influence of certain conditions he made a mistake, then it is not a mistake at all, his behavior is justified, and therefore he has the right to repeat it.

Festinger not only created a theory that is based on general principles, but also managed to derive consequences that can be subjected to experimental testing. His theory turned out to be heuristic - other researchers discovered phenomena predicted by the theory even where Festinger himself would hardly have expected to see them. Thus, he created a truly scientific theory. And his book teaches us the most important thing - how to do real science.

Viktor Allahverdov,

professor, doctor of psychological sciences,

Head of the Department of General Psychology, St. Petersburg State University

Preface by the author

This preface is mainly devoted to the history of the ideas on which this book is based. The chronological format I have chosen is the best way to pay tribute to the colleagues who provided me with significant assistance during the development of the book, as well as to explain what prompted me to write it and what my original goals were.

Late in the fall of 1951, Bernard Berelson, director of the Center for Behavioral Science at the Ford Foundation, asked me if I would be interested in working on a policy review. 1
English propositional inventory is a genre in English-language scientific literature, which, among the genres of the domestic tradition, is closest to an analytical review and aims to highlight a set of statements that can be made based on the current state of a particular area of research ( approx. ed.).

Such an important scientific field as the study of “communication and social influence”. A huge amount of factual material has been accumulated in this area, which has not yet been generalized by anyone or worked out at a theoretical level. It covered a range of studies from the study of the influence of mass media to the analysis of interpersonal communication. If it were possible to extract from this material a system of theoretical statements that would connect with each other many facts already known in this area and allow new predictions to be made, then this would be a work of undoubted value.

The idea of theoretical generalization is always attractive and a challenge for the scientist, although at that moment it was clear to everyone that, even if such an attempt was successful, it could not be hoped that it would be possible to cover the entire delineated field of research. The plan, which seemed to promise to lead to results of interest, was to begin with the analysis of some narrowly formulated problem in the field of "communications and social influence", to arrive at the result of a set of hypotheses and statements that would give a successful explanation of available evidence. If successful, another specific problem could be considered and the theory expanded and modified. Of course, it should be recognized that in this case again and again one will have to face results that cannot be dealt with only at the theoretical level. One could only hope that such dead ends and the need to switch to other facts could be recognized fairly quickly.

Our analysis team, funded by the Ford Foundation's Center for Behavioral Science, included May Brodbeck, Don Martindal, Jack Brehm, and Alvin Boderman. The group began its activities by studying the problem of the spread of rumors.

The routine work of collecting and analyzing a huge amount of bibliographic material on the topic of rumors, separating facts from speculation and from unproven assumptions was relatively easy. It was much more difficult to generalize the collected material and come to theoretical assumptions that would allow us to find a satisfactory approach to the empirical data. It was quite easy to restate the research results in slightly more general terms, but such intellectual exercises did not lead us to any tangible progress.

The first insight that gave us any inspiration came from a discussion of Prasad's research into the phenomenon of rumors following the 1934 Indian earthquake (this research is described in detail in Chapter 10).

The puzzling fact cited by Prasad was that after the earthquakes, most of the rumors that were actively spreading among people predicted even more catastrophic events in the near future. Of course, believing that terrible disasters are about to happen is not the most pleasant kind of belief, and we were surprised that such worry-provoking rumors had become so widespread. We finally came up with a possible answer that seemed promising in terms of further generalizations: the wave of rumors foreshadowing the coming of even greater disasters was more likely to justify anxiety than to cause it. In other words, after the earthquake, people were already very afraid, and the function of rumors was to provide justification for their fear. Perhaps rumors provided people with information relevant to the state they were already in.

This fact became the starting point from which, in the course of numerous discussions, we tried to develop and formulate an idea that led us to the creation of the concept of dissonance and a hypothesis regarding its reduction. Once this concept was formulated, the possibilities for its application became obvious and formed the main content of our work on the project. For some time we were still trying to simultaneously stick to the original scoping plan and explore the possibilities of the concept of cognitive dissonance. However, the incredible complexity of the first task and our enthusiasm for the second increasingly shifted the focus of our efforts.

The development of the theory of cognitive dissonance occurred, of course, in a different way than that presented in the book. The first two chapters deal with fairly simple issues, while subsequent chapters address more complex issues. In fact, the first phenomenon that we tried to explain within the framework of dissonance theory was the phenomena of voluntary and involuntary information acquisition, as they relate to the field of communication research with which we were originally concerned. Consequences regarding this problem also followed directly from the study of the spread of rumors. If people are trying to find information relevant to the state they are experiencing, then it is clear that the search process will not be limited only to the spread of rumors, but rather will be part of the general information search process. The obvious consequences of the concept of dissonance very soon took us beyond the initially defined topic of “communication and social influence.” However, it seemed to us that it was much more effective to follow the direction given by a promising new theory than to strictly adhere to the initially determined plan.

Fortunately, we had the opportunity not only to search for data in the scientific literature, but also to conduct our own research designed to test the consequences of the new theory. We were able to collect our own data through financial support from the Social Relations Research Laboratory at the University of Minnesota, as well as personal research grants from the Ford Foundation. I do not list all the scientists who assisted us in conducting research in the preface, since they will be mentioned when describing specific works in the corresponding chapters.

There is a point of view that the author should have waited another five years before writing such a book. By that time, much more research would have been conducted to test the theory, and many currently unclear questions would have already been resolved. However, fragmented journal publications poorly represent the theory and the variety of data relevant to it. An important feature of cognitive dissonance theory is its ability to integrate a wealth of scientific evidence from seemingly diverse research fields, and this feature is lost if the theory is not described in a single book. It also seems to the author that at the moment there is already enough data to support the theory for it to be published and find its followers.

Finally, I would like to express my gratitude to those who assisted me in the writing and final editing of individual chapters of this book, namely: Judson Mills, Robert S. Sears, Ernst R. Hilgard, Herbert McCloskey, Daniel Miller, James Coleman, Martin Lipset, Raymond Bauer, Jack Brehm and May Brodbeck. Many of them were members of the Ford Foundation's Center for Behavioral Research when much of this book was written.

Leon Festinger,

Palo Alto, California.

March 1956

Chapter 1
Introduction to Dissonance Theory

It has long been noted that a person strives for internal harmony. His views and attitudes tend to unite into groups characterized by the consistency of their elements. Of course, it is not difficult to find exceptions to this rule. Thus, a person may believe that black Americans are no worse than their white fellow citizens, but this same person would prefer that they not live in his immediate neighborhood. Or another example: someone may believe that children should behave quietly and modestly, but he also feels obvious pride when his beloved child energetically attracts the attention of adult guests. Such inconsistency, which can sometimes take quite dramatic forms, attracts our attention mainly because it contrasts sharply with the background idea of internal consistency. In most cases, interrelated opinions and social attitudes are consistent with each other. Study after study reports consistency in people's political, social, and other attitudes.

The same kind of consistency exists between a person's knowledge and beliefs and what he does. A person who is convinced that higher education is a good thing will strongly encourage his children to go to university. A child who knows that he will be severely punished for an offense will try not to commit it, or at least try not to get caught in it. All this is so obvious that we take examples of such behavior for granted. Our attention is primarily drawn to various kinds of exceptions to generally consistent behavior. For example, a person may be aware that smoking is harmful to his health, but continue to smoke; Many people commit crimes fully aware that the likelihood of being caught and punished is very high.

Taking consistency for granted, what can be said about these kinds of exceptions? Very rarely, if ever, are they recognized as contradictions by the person himself. Usually he makes more or less successful attempts to somehow rationalize such a discrepancy. Thus, a person who continues to smoke, knowing that it is harmful to his health, may also believe, for example, that the pleasure obtained from smoking is so great that it is worth it; or that the changes in a smoker's health are not as fatal as is believed; that it is impossible, being a living person, to always avoid all existing dangers; or, finally, that if he quits smoking, he may gain weight, and this is also bad for health. Thus, he successfully reconciles his smoking habit with his beliefs regarding smoking. However, people are not always so successful in trying to rationalize their behavior; for one reason or another, attempts to ensure consistency may fail. The contradiction simply continues to exist. In this case, psychological discomfort occurs.

So, we have come to formulate the main hypotheses, the consequences of which this book is devoted to. First, however, let's replace the word "contradiction" with a term that has fewer logical connotations, namely the term "dissonance." Likewise, instead of using the word “coherence,” I will use the more neutral term “consonance.” A formal definition of these concepts will be given below, but now let's rely on their implicit meaning, which we introduced above in the initial discussions. So, I want to formulate the main hypotheses as follows.

1. The existence of dissonance creates psychological discomfort and will motivate a person to try to reduce the degree of dissonance and achieve consonance.

2. When dissonance occurs, in addition to the fact that the individual will strive to reduce it, he will also actively avoid situations and information that may lead to an increase in dissonance.

Before proceeding to a detailed development of the theory of dissonance and the desire to reduce it, it is necessary to clarify the nature of dissonance as a psychological phenomenon, the nature of the concept that describes it, as well as the possibilities of applying the theory associated with this concept. The two main hypotheses formulated above provide a good starting point for this. Although they are related to dissonance, they are actually very general hypotheses. The term “dissonance” in them can be freely replaced by another concept of a similar nature, for example, “hunger”, “frustration” or “disequilibrium”, and the resulting hypotheses will be quite meaningful.

I suggest that dissonance, that is, the existence of contradictory relationships between individual elements in a system of knowledge, is itself a motivating factor. By the term “knowledge” I will understand any opinion or belief of an individual regarding the world around him, himself, his own behavior. Cognitive dissonance can be understood as an initial condition that leads to actions aimed at reducing it, in the same way, for example, as hunger motivates activities aimed at satisfying it. This is a completely different type of motivation than the one that psychologists are used to dealing with, but nevertheless, as we will see later, no less powerful.

Now a few words about the further contents of this book. It is devoted to the analysis of a variety of situations related to the emergence of cognitive dissonance and a person’s attempts to reduce it. If a certain author set out to write a book about the role of hunger as a drive that motivates human behavior, the result would be similar in nature to my book. Such a work could contain chapters examining the effects of attempts to reduce hunger in settings ranging from an infant in a high chair to adults at a formal banquet. Similarly, this book also describes and studies a variety of situations, ranging from individual decision-making to the behavior of large groups of people. Since the desire to reduce dissonance is a basic human process, it is not surprising that the manifestations of this process can be observed in such a wide range.

Cognitive dissonance theory is one of the psychological theories about attitude change. It argues that a person behaves in a way that maximizes the internal consistency of his cognitive system. Groups also try to maximize the internal consistency of their members' relationships.

Leon Festinger in his laboratory, 1959

In addition to the theory of cognitive dissonance by L. Festinger (1957), there is a similar theory of balance by Heider (1946), as well as the corresponding theories of Osgood and Tannenbaum (1955). However, cognitive dissonance theory as a distinct branch of psychology has been the most influential for decades. One of the most attractive aspects of this theory is that it offered simple, intuitive hypotheses that were often confirmed.

The basic principle of the theory: two cognitive elements (thoughts, opinions, beliefs) are in a dissonant relationship if one of the sides directly follows from the other. Since dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable, its existence motivates the individual to reduce it and achieve harmony (consonance). Further, if dissonance exists, the person will actively avoid situations and information that can generate it.

The theory of cognitive dissonance has been repeatedly criticized for its incomprehensibility, vague terminology, and the like. Indeed, it is more appropriate to view this theory as more problematic than affirmative. The experimental methodology used to prove it was also criticized for its artificiality, the possibility of discrepancies and questionable external validity, and ignoring individual characteristics.

In his main work, “The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance,” Festinger formulates its starting points as follows: the main idea of the theory is that the human body strives to establish internal harmony. This is consistency, consistency between your thoughts, abilities, knowledge and values. That is, a living organism is aimed at consistency within cognitive (cognitive) activity. In order to operate perfectly with this concept (“coherence”), Festinger interprets cognitive activity as one that is decomposed into elements, or, finally, as a set of such elements.

Festinger offers theoretical statements regarding the relationships between cognitive elements:

a pair of elements can exist in relationships that are irrelevant or relevant to the case (situation or object);
in relations of consistency or inconsistency;
two recognizable elements are in a state of isolation (irrelevance) if they have no relation to each other;
two recognizable elements are in a dissonant relationship if there is dissonance for each of them separately, when each element excludes or opposes the other;
two recognizable elements are in a consonantal relationship if one element complements or follows from the other.

Based on these definitions, Festinger establishes the following forms of cognitive dissonance.

Dissonance almost always occurs after a decision has been made between two or more alternatives. After all, the solution is not the elimination of the opposite, but its pushing aside. It is the concentration of attention on one side of the alternative. We are talking only about the mental delay of the undesirable side of the alternative, but “in itself” it continues to exist. This repression into the unconscious reveals a process that has become the main focus of psychoanalysis. Cognitive elements that correspond to the positive characteristic of the rejected alternative, and those that correspond to the negative characteristic of the chosen alternative, are dissonant with the knowledge of the action that was carried out. Those negative elements that correspond to the positive characteristic of the chosen alternative and the negative characteristic of the rejected alternative are consonant with the cognitive elements corresponding to the action that was accepted.
Dissonance almost always arises after an attempt at choice, with the prospect of reward or punishment due to the type (character) of behavior being carried out, which differs from one or another initial thought. If such behavior has been successfully carried out, the individual's individual opinion is dissonant with her knowledge regarding her behavior; Moreover, her knowledge about the reward received or about the prevention of punishment is consonant with her knowledge about her behavior. If the behavior was not successful, dissonance occurs.
Purposeful or random access to new information can create cognitive elements that are dissonant with existing knowledge.
The manifestation of open disagreement in a group leads to the emergence of cognitive dissonance among group members.

This theory initially captivates with its unconstrained simplicity, almost truisms, but subsequently it is addressed as such, which contains real scientific and philosophical generalizations. Historian of psychology M. Hunt notes in this regard that it was, without a doubt, the most influential theory in social psychology from the late 1950s to the early 70s. Gradually it lost its position, and today it is only generally known knowledge, but not an area of active scientific research.

Cognitive dissonance theory states that a person experiences tension and discomfort when he has incongruent, inconsistent ideas (for example, “so-and-so is a talkative, boring person, but I need him as a friend and accomplice”) and strives to find ways to reduce this dissonance (“he is not bad as you know him to be” or “I don’t really need him, I can get something without him”, etc.).

In 1930, K. Lewin came close to this phenomenon when he examined how a person's inclinations could be changed by his membership in a group that makes a decision, and how such a person could stick to that decision while ignoring later information that conflicted with it. Lewin's student Festinger took this line of research further, developing his theory of cognitive dissonance.

Festinger's first experiment in cognitive dissonance was a 1954 research project in which he and two University of Minnesota students acted as secret agents for seven weeks. They read in the newspapers about an incident involving Mrs. Keech (not her real name), a housewife who lived near Minneapolis. This woman claimed that about a year ago she received a message from a higher being, whom she identified as a guardian from the planet Clarion (he announced himself in the form of an automatic letter that the woman wrote while in a trance). On December 21, the message said, a great flood would cover the Northern Hemisphere, and everyone who lived there, except for a select few, would be destroyed.

Festinger, who was developing his theory at this time, and his younger colleagues saw an extremely convenient opportunity to observe cognitive dissonance “first hand.”

Psychologists felt that Mrs. Keech's public statement and subsequent events must be an invaluable demonstration of cognitive dissonance in real life - the development of a paradoxical response to a contradictory reality. They developed a plan according to which Mrs. Keech was supposed to communicate in a small hut with everyone who believed in this prophecy and would like to wait with her for the next messages from the planet Clarion. This audience included three researchers and five student assistants. Under the guise of believers, they attended their meetings sixty times over seven weeks. The research was extremely physically and emotionally grueling - partly due to the need to hide my reaction to the absurdity of what was happening.

Finally, Mrs. Keech received the message she had been waiting for: a spaceship would arrive at a certain place at a certain time to save the believers. However, the ship did not arrive, and December 21st arrived without any consequences.

In the end, the woman received another message: they say, thanks to the goodness and light created by believers, God decided to cancel the misfortunes and take pity on this world. Some of the new cult's adherents, particularly those who initially doubted it and could not come to terms with the collapse that had occurred in their own faith, left the cult and disappeared. But those who deeply devoted themselves to this belief, abandoned all their occupations and even sold their property in anticipation of the end of the world - they behaved as the researchers expected. They became even more convinced of the existence of aliens and prophecies than Mrs. Keech herself. The revelation did not hinder their faith, but only strengthened it. This eliminated the internal conflict between what they believed in and the reality that brought disappointment.

In 1959, Festinger and his colleague J. Carlsmith conducted a study that is now considered a classic cognitive experiment. Its essence was that scientists, resorting to almost artistic tricks, tried to reduce the dissonance of the experiment participants.

Festinger and Carlsmith asked the couple to perform an extremely boring task: they had to place a dozen hairpins on a tray and remove them from it within half an hour. After the pair finished, one of the researchers told them that the purpose of the experiment was to explore how interest in a task causes a certain effect. The spouses then had to tell the next subjects what was enjoyable about the task, and also specifically emphasize the interest and enjoyment of the task. Next, these spouses were involved in the next stage of the experiment, where they had to act as research assistants. For this, a monetary reward was offered - 1 or 20 dollars. Next, all participants in the experiment had to admit that their words about the “interesting” task were an obvious deception for the next test subject. After this, the final subject was asked how enjoyable it was for him to perform this task.

Since the task was truly unbearably boring, lying to anyone else was to create a condition of cognitive dissonance (“I lied to someone else. However, I’m not that kind of person”). The key question was whether the amount of payment the subjects received would influence the means they used to alleviate dissonance. Those who received $20, a significant sum at the time, were expected to be more willing to change their minds than those who received one dollar. However, Festinger and Carlsmith predicted the opposite. Subjects who received $20 considered the money to be a substantial reward for the experiment, which meant they were quick to agree to publicly confirm their lies.

But those who received one dollar had such little justification for their lies that they felt cognitive dissonance and could only alleviate it by convincing themselves that the task was actually interesting.

As already noted, the theory of cognitive dissonance has been repeatedly criticized. Meanwhile, a stream of experiments has shown that cognitive dissonance must be qualified as meaningful and really existing. And, moreover, as a mature theory.

In his memoirs, the famous social psychologist Elronson wrote: “... We can create ten good hypotheses in the course of an evening... the kind of hypotheses, none of which a person had even dreamed of several years earlier, but we rarely do this. It is this fact that significantly elevates the status of theories that receive thorough confirmation in practice.”

The theory of cognitive dissonance explained some features of social behavior that had not previously been considered by behaviorists. Here are some examples supported by experiment.

The stronger the group membership becomes, the higher the group is rated by the individual.
We dislike what hurts us, instead of believing that the pain was a valuable experience.
Those who smoke usually say that the link between smoking and cancer has not been proven.
Students who cheat on an exam say that everyone else is cheating too, and they do it to avoid being disadvantaged.
People who hold opposing views tend to interpret the same facts in completely different ways. Each remembers only what supports his position, “brings shine to the surface” and forgets what could create dissonance.
If people who think they are smart are forced to hurt others (as soldiers did to civilians during war), they reduce dissonance by humiliating the vanquished.
If someone benefits from social injustice by causing the suffering of others, he convinces himself that those suffering are themselves to blame, they could have lived better, that this is their fate, etc.

Here is another example of a “natural experiment” that illustrates the human desire to regulate cognitive dissonance through rationalization.

After the 1983 California earthquake struck the city of Santa Cruz, Commissioner Stevens was called in under a new California law to assess the damage to local homes. He identified 175 buildings that had very severe damage. The city council, implicitly wanting to avoid the amount of expensive work, rejected this dissonant information and discounted it. Stevens was called an alarmist, and his report about the threat to the city was rejected. Also, no measures were taken. And soon a seven-magnitude earthquake struck the Santa Cruz area again. Three hundred houses were destroyed and a thousand were seriously damaged, five people were killed and two thousand were injured.

Because of its explanatory power, the theory of cognitive dissonance has successfully survived all attacks. And only one critical reproach she could not easily challenge. This is a question of research ethics. Although scientists always invited volunteers, they offered them morally difficult experiments without their consent, which could harm their self-esteem. True, after the experiment, the researchers explained to them that hiding the truth was necessary for scientific purposes. But an unethical remedy does not become ethical. Such problems were not unique to dissonance theory. They also existed in other social psychological studies.

Romenets V.A., Manokha I.P. History of psychology of the 20th century. - Kyiv, Lybid, 2003.