Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" - review - Effective Life Psychology - online journal

24.09.2019

Presentation "Formation of communicative language at foreign language lessons in elementary school"

Presentation - indeclinable nouns Presentation of indeclinable nouns

Presentation of the assignment for teachers on communicative learning

2.3.1. Essence of dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance, created in 1957, was for its author a continuation of the development of the idea of "social comparison", which Festinger had been working on much earlier. In this area, Festinger acts as a student and follower of Levin. The initial concept for it is the concept of need, and a special type of needs is analyzed, namely, “the need to evaluate oneself” (“evaluative need”), i.e. the desire to evaluate one's opinions and abilities first of all (subsequently, a follower of Festinger, Schechter, extended the principle of comparison also to the assessment of emotions). However, opinions and abilities are correlated with social reality, and, unlike physical reality, it is created not by empirical observation, but by group consensus - consent. If someone in the physical world believes that a surface is fragile, he can test his opinion by taking a hammer and striking the surface.

According to Festinger, social reality is another matter: here many opinions cannot be verified by empirical observations, so the only way to test an opinion is through social agreement, consensus. But consensus can only be established if people can compare their opinions with the opinions of others, i.e. compare them. The same applies to abilities - they are revealed in comparison with the abilities of other people. Hence is born, or, more precisely, this dictates the need of each person to compare himself with others.

Festinger suggested that the tendency to compare oneself with others decreases if the difference between my opinion or ability and the opinion or ability of another increases. Moreover, the comparison steadily also in the case when one's own opinions and abilities are compared with opinions and abilities close to them. Personality is generally less inclined towards those situations where it encounters opinions that are far from its own, and, on the contrary, seeks situations where it encounters opinions that are close to it. Accordingly, the comparison is carried out mainly with people whose opinions and abilities are more similar to their own: a person who begins to learn the game of chess will rather compare himself with other beginners, and not with recognized masters. Along the way, Festinger notes that the minimum dissimilarity of opinions leads to conformism - a person easily changes an opinion that is slightly different from others in order to bring his opinion closer to the opinion of the group.

It is easy to see that the theory of social comparison was based on knowledge about oneself and knowledge about the other. In this sense, she wore interpersonal character and could claim the status of a socio-psychological theory.

However, it generated a very limited amount of research, partly because the results obtained in the research were very easy to interpret in other terms and the theory's significance seemed to be minimized. Another reason was that Festinger himself quickly moved from it to the construction of a new theory - cognitive dissonance. In this theory, the “need for knowledge” is again recognized as the initial one, but now it is “knowledge about oneself”, namely the need to know in a connected, consistent, non-contradictory way. Instead of interpersonal theory of social comparison is built intrapersonal a theory that, in the strict sense of the word, is not a socio-psychological theory, but rather claims the status of a general psychological theory. But as was the case with Heider's theory, the socio-psychological applications of the theory of cognitive dissonance turned out to be so significant that it firmly took its place among socio-psychological theories and is usually considered as a kind of correspondence theory on a par with theories of balance, communicative acts, congruence. etc. “All these theories,” Deutsch and Krauss argue, “suggest that a person seeks to perceive, cognize, or evaluate various aspects of his environment and himself in such a way that there is no inconsistency in the behavioral consequences of this perception.”

At the same time, unlike other theories of correspondence, Festinger's theory nowhere focuses specifically on social behavior, and, moreover, its fate has developed more dramatically than the fate of any other theory of correspondence. The theory of cognitive dissonance has stimulated much more research, and in this sense its popularity is much higher than others, but at the same time, the opposition to it turned out to be much stronger. It is also important to note that the theory of cognitive dissonance has a very solid “literature”: firstly, it is described in great detail by the author himself in his 1957 work “The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance” and, secondly, it received a huge response in the works of many representatives of the Western social psychology, so that it is possible, perhaps, to record a special “literature on the theory of dissonance”, which is a critical analysis of this theory, often footnotes to it, and sometimes very sharp polemics with it.

Festinger himself begins the exposition of his theory with the following reasoning: it is noticed that people strive for some consistency as a desired internal state. If there is a conflict between what a person knows and the fact that he does, then they try to somehow explain this contradiction and, most likely, present it as non-contradiction in order to regain a state of internal cognitive coherence. Further, Festinger proposes to replace the terms - "contradiction" with "dissonance", and "consistency" with "consonance", since this last pair of terms seems to him more "neutral", and now formulate the main provisions of the theory.

It can be summarized in three main points: a) dissonance can occur between cognitive elements; b) the existence of dissonance causes a desire to reduce it or prevent its growth; c) the manifestation of this desire includes: either a change in behavior, or a change in knowledge, or a cautious attitude to new information. As an example, the example of a smoker, which has already become a household name, is usually given: a person smokes, but at the same time he knows that smoking is harmful; he has a dissonance, out of which there are three ways: a) change the behavior, i.e. quit smoking; b) to change knowledge, in this case - to convince oneself that all arguments, articles about the dangers of smoking are at least unreliable, exaggerate the danger; c) be wary of new information about the harms of smoking, i.e. simply ignore her.

Before further expounding the content of Festinger's theory, it is necessary to more precisely define the terms introduced. Firstly, the basic units in the theory of dissonance are "cognitive elements", which, we recall, were defined by the author of the theory as "any knowledge, opinion, belief about the environment, someone, someone's behavior or oneself."

Secondly, among all these cognitive elements, or "cognitions", two types must be distinguished: those related to behavior (it does not matter to whom) and those related to the environment. An example of the first is “I'm going on a picnic today”, an example of the second is “it's raining”. It is important to distinguish between these two types of cognitions because the extent to which these cognitive elements can be changed is different: behavioral cognitions are easier to change than environmental cognitions, such as judgments about apparent reality.

Here it is necessary to make one more important remark. When presenting the theory of cognitive dissonance, a somewhat ambiguous understanding of the essence of "inconsistency" is often allowed. Strictly speaking, what is always meant is a discrepancy within the cognitive structure of the individual, i.e. between two cognitions, on the other hand, the discrepancy is sometimes formulated, and in particular by Festinger himself, as a discrepancy between "knowledge" and "behavior", i.e. no longer between two cognitions, but between an element of the cognitive structure and the actual action of the individual. With this interpretation, dissonance, generally speaking, ceases to be purely cognitive. At the same time, with such an interpretation, it is easier to interpret it, which Festinger does, as a factor motivating behavior. The contradiction between the two understandings becomes especially clear precisely when considering the differences between the two types of cognitive elements: after all, it is directly stated here that it is easier to change cognitions “related to behavior” (i.e., not self behavior, but only knowledge, an opinion about it) than cognitions "relating to the environment." Despite the abundance of comments, this question is not raised anywhere, but meanwhile it is of fundamental importance. In practice, in numerous studies on the theory of dissonance, two different interpretations of this issue continue to coexist.

Thirdly, dissonance theory does not consider any relations between cognitive elements, because there can be three of them in principle: a) the absolute absence of communication between them, their irrelevance to each other (for example, the knowledge that it never snows in Florida, and that some planes fly in excess of speed of sound); b) consonance relations; c) relations of dissonance. In theory, only the last two types of relations between cognitive elements are considered, and, naturally, the main attention is paid to dissonant relations. Here is Festinger's own formulation of what a dissonant relationship is: "The two elements X and Y are in dissonant relations if, when considered in isolation, the negation of one follows from the other, namely not X follows from Y"[Festinger, 1999, p. 29]. Example: a person is a debtor (Y) but buys a new, expensive car (X). This is where a dissonant relationship arises because Y(of the fact that a person is a debtor) some appropriate action in this case should follow x, and then there would be consonance. In the above case, from G follows an action different from the "reasonable" option ("not X"), those. the purchase of an expensive car that does not correspond to the circumstances, and therefore dissonance arises.

With this formulation of the essence of dissonant relations, two questions are immediately born that give rise to a very protracted discussion in the literature on dissonance. These two questions involve two vulnerable formulations: 1) what does "should" mean? 2) what does it mean "not X"?

2.3.2. Causes and magnitude of dissonance

The category of "following" is the category of logic; in modern systems of mathematical logic there is a special symbolic designation of following - there the expression "should" has a very definite logical meaning. Festinger introduces a different interpretation of the following, which includes not only a logical, but also a psychological understanding of this relationship. Explaining what the expression “follows from” means in his formula, Festinger suggests four sources for the possible occurrence of dissonance [ibid., p. 30-31]:

1) from logical inconsistency, those. when "following "not X", from "Y" there is proof of the purely logical inconsistency of the two judgments as cognitive elements. Examples of such a situation: a person believes that it is possible to reach some distant planet, but does not believe that it is possible to build an appropriate ship; a person knows that water freezes at 0 ° C, but at the same time believes that

that a glass of ice will not melt at +20°C; it is known that people are mortal, but I think that I will live forever, etc.;

2) from the mismatch of cognitive elements with cultural patterns, or, in other words, rules. Example: it is customary that at a diplomatic reception you need to eat a roast, holding a fork in your left hand and a knife in your right, but someone operates with a fork with the right hand; the professor, losing his temper, yells at the student, knowing that this is an elementary violation of pedagogical norms. There is no logical inconsistency here, but there is a different kind of inconsistency, namely, inconsistency with the norms of behavior accepted in a certain environment;

3) from the inconsistency of a given cognitive element with some wider system of ideas. Example: a certain American voter is a Democrat, but suddenly votes for a Republican candidate in an election. The realization of the fact that he is a democrat does not correspond to a specific action, this creates a dissonance in his cognitive structure, although here again there is no purely logical inconsistency;

4) from inconsistency with past experience. Example: someone went out without an umbrella in the rain and thinks that he will not get wet, although in the past he always got wet to the skin in such a situation. There is also an inconsistency between knowing that you always get wet in the rain and such an "environmental" cognitive element as stating "the rain won't get me wet" there is also a dissonance that generates dissonance.

All three of the last cases of dissonance are based on a different nature of "non-following" than is customary in logic. Two of the most prominent representatives of the theories of correspondence R. Abelson and M. Rosenberg proposed a special term "psychology" to refer to such situations of inconsistency. This psychology is intended to indicate the special nature of the implications that arise between cognitions [see: Lindzey, Aronson (eds.), 1968].

In order to formulate the rules of psychology, Abelson and Resenberg proposed a classification of all possible elements and relationships that appear in the cognitive field. Elements can be of three types: actors (the subject of perception itself, other people, groups); means (actions, institutions, responses); goals (results). Relations, that link these elements can be of four types: positive, negative, neutral, ambivalent. The two elements and the relationship between them constitute a "sentence". In total, 36 types of offers can be received. Combined together, they form a structural matrix. Her study allows us to derive eight rules of psychology. Without dwelling now on the presentation of the whole concept of Abelson and Rosenberg, we will show the content of these rules using one example (the notation for the elements is introduced: A, B, C; for relationships: R- positive, P- negative, about - neutral, a- ambivalent):

A p B and B n C includes A r C,

which means that if BUT positive attitude to B, and B negative attitude towards WITH, then BUT positive attitude towards WITH. The authors themselves believe that, although "reasons" of this kind are rejected by logicians, they actually exist: this is how people often reason in practice. Abelson notes that this refers to a serious, but not too brilliant "thinker", who argues something like this: "If BUT makes an action B, a B blocking the target WITH, then it follows from this that BUT- against target WITH. But I always thought that BUT takes aim WITH, and now it confuses me." Here a potential discrepancy is fixed, which illustrates the contradiction between practical considerations and rules of logic. It is precisely such practical considerations that are reflected in the rules of psychology.

We note right away that the structural matrix of Abelson and Rosenberg is a generalization of all types of possible connections between elements and relations fixed in various correspondence theories. In the same way, the rules of psychology formulated by the authors are valid not only for the theory of cognitive dissonance. However, since it is precisely here that the question of the nature of "correspondence" arises more sharply, the rationale for the need for psychology is primarily addressed to this theory. Abelson directly proposes to see some psychological implication in cognitive dissonance, which consists in the fact that dissonance fixes not just a logical contradiction, but a contradiction between the logical and alogical in human behavior: “The question of the nature of correspondence (meaning in theories of cognitive correspondence. - Auth.) Ultimately, there is the question of the nature of Meaning, of "subjective rationality." Thus, the expression "follows from" in Festinger's theory acquires a specific meaning, which, despite the already fairly extensive literature on psychology, remains not completely elucidated and therefore continues to give food for criticism.

In the same way, another category used in the formula that defines the essence of dissonant relations is not completely satisfied: "not X". The researcher of the theory of dissonance E. Aronson believes, for example, that the uncertainty of the boundaries of the concept "not X" leads to the fact that in some cases it is difficult to fix the fact of dissonance, because there are situations implicit dissonance. Aronson suggests this situation: "My favorite writer beats his wife." Does this fit the dissonance formula, i.e. under the formula: “not X follows from Y"? The answer to this question depends on whether we believe that "not beating" one's wife should be an attribute of a favorite writer. So, it all depends on how we generally define the concept of "favorite writer", i.e. whether we include in it a characteristic of the high moral qualities of this person, whether he observes the norms of behavior or not. A different answer to this question makes us take a different attitude to the very fact of establishing dissonance or denying it in a given situation.

It is possible that the controversy around these problems would not be so acute if the theory of dissonance in its other parts did not claim to be sufficiently accurate, to attempt to formalize its individual provisions. Indeed, everything that has been said so far, in general, fits into the mainstream of other cognitive theories, including from the point of view of justifying the presence of common sense considerations in them. As you can see, everything in Festinger is based on very everyday examples, on some axioms gleaned from everyday maxims. It seems logical that such a basis for theoretical reasoning allows for a certain laxity of terms and some unsteadiness of logical constructions. However, it is one thing to admit the right to exist: within the scientific theory of such grounds (and cognitivism affirms this, first of all), it is another thing to try to such basis to build a rigorous theory, in particular with the inclusion of formalization elements in it. One has only to embark on this path, and the number of difficulties facing the theory will be multiplied. Approximately this happens with the theory of dissonance. The ambiguous interpretation of the original concepts turns out to be very difficult to step over, as soon as attempts are introduced measurements of dissonance.

Meanwhile, Festinger, unlike other representatives of correspondence theories, tries not only to state the presence of dissonance, but also to measure its magnitude (degree). The general definition of the magnitude of dissonance is given as follows: “The magnitude of dissonance between two cognitive elements is a function of the importance (or significance) of the elements for the individual” [Festinger, 1999, p. 35], i.e. between two insignificant elements, the dissonance cannot be large, despite the high degree of inconsistency. On the other hand, two significant elements can develop a great dissonance, even if the degree of dissonance itself is not so great. An example is the following situation: if someone bought an inexpensive thing, and then became disillusioned with it, the amount of dissonance that arose here is small. If, for example, a student knows very well that he is not ready for an exam, but he himself nevertheless quits classes and goes to the cinema, then the dissonance that arises in this case is much greater.

However, the above definition alone is not enough to measure the magnitude of dissonance. First of all, because in practice a person has in his cognitive structure by no means two cognitive elements that are in a certain way compared with each other, but many. Therefore, it was necessary to introduce the concept of "general dissonance". According to Festinger, the total amount of dissonance depends on "a weighted proportion of those relevant elements that are dissonant" [ibid]. "Weighted proportions" means that each ratio must be weighted in proportion to the importance of the elements involved. At the same time, the concept of “the least stable element” is introduced: “The maximum dissonance that can exist between two elements is equal to the total resistance to change of the least stable element” [Festinger, 1984, p. 108]. But then the question immediately arises: how to measure the "importance" of these elements, how to express the degree of this importance and how to identify the least persistent element? The author of the theory of dissonance does not give answers to these questions; the way of measuring the degree of importance of cognitive elements remains unclear. This largely devalues all further reasoning, in particular, an attempt to calculate the so-called "maximum of dissonance", etc. Therefore, the expectation that the introduction of measurement procedures into the theory of dissonance will give it greater rigor and "respectability", in general, did not materialize.

Although the presentation of the theory periodically offered times-| formulas of a personal kind, for example, regarding the “general amount of dissonance”, they do not have a strict mathematical meaning. True, one can admit that they carry a certain semantic load, fixing some really captured properties of dissonant relations. However, at the same time, naturally, the mathematical apparatus of the theory is absent: the proposed "formulas" give nothing more than a descriptive characteristic of relations, performed only with the help of another language.

2.3.3. Ways to Reduce Dissonance

In our opinion, much more significant is not that side of the theory of dissonance, which is associated with the claim to establish its quantitative characteristics, but just the analysis of some qualitative features of the phenomenon [see: Trusov, 1973]. These include, for example, a description of the consequences of dissonance and ways to reduce it. Recall that the consequences of dissonance were indicated immediately when it was determined: 1) the existence of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, motivates a person to reduce dissonance and achieve consonance; 2) when dissonance exists, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person actively avoids situations and information that contribute to its growth. Thus, Festinger definitely introduces some elements of motivation into his theory. But it is important to define very precisely the boundaries in posing this problem. Just as duality was allowed in defining the essence of “inconsistency”, the question of the motivating role of dissonance also looks ambiguous. On the one hand, as we have already noted, Festinger himself ascribes to dissonance the role of a factor motivating action. On the other hand, when describing ways to reduce dissonance, it becomes clear that dissonance acts only as a motivation for restructuring the cognitive structure, but not as a motivation for action.

As already mentioned, there are three ways to reduce dissonance.

1. Changing the behavioral elements of the cognitive structure. Example: a person was going to a picnic, but it started to rain. There is a dissonance - a discrepancy between the "idea of a picnic" and "the knowledge that the weather is bad." Dissonance can be reduced or even prevented by not taking part in the picnic. This is where the ambiguity discussed above comes into play. In general terms, this way of reducing dissonance is defined as changing cognitive element related to behavior (i.e., some judgment, for example: "I'm going to a picnic"), while presenting the example, it is no longer just a change in an element of the cognitive structure, but a change real behavior recommendation of a particular actions- To stay home.

One gets the impression that dissonance acts here as a motivating factor in behavior, but, strictly speaking, the argument for behavior is not quite legitimate here: after all, we are talking - in theoretical terms - about inconsistencies between two elements. knowledge(or opinions, or beliefs), i.e. two cognitive elements. Therefore, from the point of view of the general principles of the theory, a more accurate formulation is that it is possible to reduce dissonance by changing one of the cognitive elements, therefore, excluding the statement “I am going to a picnic” from the cognitive structure, replacing it with another judgment - “I am not going to a picnic”. picnic". It simply says nothing about actual behavior, which is quite "legitimate" if you stay within the proposed theoretical scheme. Of course, it must be assumed that after change in cognition will be followed by change in behavior, but the relationship between these two stages remains to be explored. In accordance with the strict definition of the essence of dissonance, it must be recognized that it does not act at all as a factor motivating behavior, but only as a factor motivating changes in the cognitive structure. This is especially evident when the second way to reduce dissonance is considered. "2. Changing cognitive elements related to the environment. Example: a person has bought a car, but it is yellow and his friends call it "lemon" disparagingly. In the cognitive structure of the buyer, a dissonance arises between the realization of the fact of acquiring an expensive thing and the lack of satisfaction caused by ridicule. "Opinion of friends" in this case - "element of the environment." How to change this cognitive element? The recommendation is formulated as follows: convince(highlighted by us. - Auth.) friends that the car is perfection. As you can see, this is not a change in the environment as such (in fact, the cognitivist position is already present here at the very definition of the "environment" as a kind of cognitive formation - a set of opinions, beliefs, etc.), i.e. by no means behavioral activity, but the opposition of an opinion to an opinion, the alteration of an opinion, i.e. known activity only in the area of the cognitive sphere.

3. Adding new elements to the cognitive structure, only those that contribute to the reduction of dissonance. The usual example here is again of the smoker who does not quit smoking (does not change behavioral cognitions), cannot change environmental cognitions (cannot silence anti-smoking scientific papers, "terrible" eyewitness accounts), and then begins to collect specific information: for example, about the benefits of a filter in cigarettes, about the fact that such and such has been smoking for twenty years, and what a big guy over there, etc. The phenomenon described here by Festinger is generally known in psychology under the name "selective exposure" and can be considered as a factor motivating only certain "cognitive" activity. Therefore, one cannot overestimate the mention of the motivating role of dissonance that we find in Festinger's theory. In general terms, the problem of the connection between cognitive structures and motivation of behavior remains unsolved here. We can agree with the cautious position taken by Abelson: "The question of whether cognitive inconsistency can act as a drive is debatable" .

The vulnerability of the theory of dissonance remains the prediction of a specific way to reduce dissonance, chosen by the individual. The first judgment, which seems to have the power of evidence, is that it is probably easiest to choose the first path - changing the cognitive elements related to one's own behavior. However, an appeal to everyday situations shows that this path is not always possible. Sometimes this way of getting out of a state of dissonance may require sacrifice: in the case of a yellow car, for example, selling it can lead to the loss of a certain amount of money. In addition, a change in the behavioral elements of the cognitive structure cannot be considered in a vacuum: any such behavioral element is connected by a whole chain of connections with other circumstances. For example, refusing to go to a picnic because of the rain may be a reasonable thing, but a picnic in the rain is not necessarily unambiguously bad, because there may be some kind of "compensators" that make a change in behavior not so absolutely necessary: the company may be very funny people, close friends whom you haven't seen for a long time, etc. Finally, sometimes a change in behavioral elements is simply prevented by the physiological characteristics of a person, for example, his excessive emotionality, susceptibility to fear, etc. [Festinger, 1999, p. 44-46].

All the above does not allow us to accept the point of view that in any case or in most of them the first way to reduce dissonance is obligatory. As for the second and third, they are predicted very weakly. Aronson, in particular, notes the fact that an accurate forecast is also hindered by the individual psychological differences of people, which give rise to a completely different attitude of different people to the very fact of dissonance. From his point of view, people differ (primarily in their ability to “moderate” dissonance: some are better than others at ignoring it). In addition, different people need different amounts of dissonance to set in motion forces to reduce it. We can perhaps say that different people are characterized by different "dissonance resistance".

Another difference concerns the ways in which dissonance is reduced: some prefer to change cognitive elements related to behavior more quickly, others prefer to selectively receive information. And finally, people differ in their assessment of dissonance, i.e. identify various phenomena with dissonance. Since dissonance is subjectively experienced as psychological discomfort, for different people the “set” of inconsistencies that have arisen within the cognitive structure, which is experienced as discomfort, turns out to be different.

Difficulties of this kind, which hinder the construction of an accurate forecast of methods for reducing dissonance in each specific case, are associated with two more important circumstances. Researchers note that sensitivity to dissonance largely depends on the level of development of the individual's self-awareness, in particular, on the desire, ability, and ability to analyze the state of one's cognitive structure. Therefore, with a higher level of self-awareness, there is simply more chance of detection dissonance. This circumstance can also be put on a par with individual differences as a factor complicating the prognosis.

R. Zayonts put forward another consideration and of a completely different plan, relating to some situational dissonance assessment factors. He suggested that the perception of dissonance depends on the expectations of the individual in certain situations. Zajonc refers to this everyday observation: why do people willingly watch magic tricks? Any situation of observing the focus, strictly speaking, should create psychological discomfort, since it clashes with inappropriate judgments, forces one to accept flagrant contradictions. But then what about the formula that in the event of a dissonance, a person not only seeks to reduce it, but also seeks to avoid situations where it manifests itself? It would be logical to assume that the natural desire of everyone is to forever abandon the contemplation of tricks, from the contemplation of rabbits suddenly taken out of a hat, sawn up in front of a woman, etc. However, many people willingly attend the performances of magicians and find pleasure in contemplating tricks. Zajonc suggested that the dissonance that occurs in these cases is tolerable, since the situation of inconsistency in the cognitive structure here expected: the dissonance that arises here is not perceived as discomfort. This dependence of identifying dissonance with discomfort imposes another limitation on Festinger's formula and therefore poses an important obstacle to its universalization.

Significant comments on the problem of the "universality" of cognitive dissonance also come from ethnopsychology. A prominent researcher in this field, G. Triandis, notes that all conclusions regarding the nature of dissonance are based on observations and experiments carried out within the framework of American culture. At the same time, these experiments, being reproduced, for example, in the conditions of African culture, give completely different results: the degree of “dissonance resistance” of a person in different cultures is very different, which is due both to different mentality and different socio-cultural norms in different peoples.

2.3.4. Dissonance and conflict

In critical judgments regarding the theory of dissonance, the motif sometimes sounds that this theory is simply “a new name for old ideas” [Aronson, 1984, p. 117]. This is especially often stated about the relationship between the theory of dissonance and the theory of conflict. At first glance, it seems that indeed the situation of dissonance and the situation of psychological conflict are very similar, and the theories of these two phenomena are almost identical.

However, this question is much more complicated. Festinger himself considers the field of conflict research to be the most important area of application of the theory of dissonance and specifically explains the need to distinguish between these two phenomena. The most important difference - place dissonance and conflict in relation to the decision-making process. Dissonance arises after making a decision, it is a consequence of the decision made; conflict arises before decision making. The conflict situation before making a decision is due to the presence of various alternatives. These alternatives can be described in different ways: the traditional version proposed by Levin is used, sometimes both negative solutions are fixed as possible, both with a positive and negative side, and finally, both positive. With any set in a conflict situation, before making a decision, a person studies all alternatives, seeks to collect the most complete information, including arguments like pro, so contra, and only then makes a decision [Festinger, 1999, p. 56].

After a decision is made, if there is an alternative, dissonance arises when the dissonant relations are negative sides selected and positive sides rejected solutions. The magnitude of the dissonance depends not only on the importance of the decision made, but also on the degree of attractiveness of the one rejected. If a cheaper car is bought and a more expensive one is rejected, then the dissonance after the purchase is greater, the more positive qualities are recalled in the rejected car. (Naturally, the amount of dissonance is greater when it comes to a car, and, for example, not to a bar of soap.) Festinger also notes that the amount of dissonance here also depends on whether homogeneous or heterogeneous situations are compared: the dissonance is under any circumstances less , if we choose one book out of two, one car out of two, and not between a book or a theater ticket, not between a car or a house. It is important that, other things being equal, the magnitude of the dissonance depends on the attractiveness of the rejected solution [ibid., p. 59].

The cognitive dissonance- this is a negative state in which individuals experience mental discomfort caused by a confrontation in their minds of conflicting ideas, values, knowledge, worldviews, ideas, beliefs, behavioral attitudes or emotional reactions.

The concept of cognitive dissonance was first proposed by L. Festinger, a specialist in the field of psychology of thought control. In his research in the course of the analysis of the attitude of the individual, he was based on the principles of balance. He began his theory with the postulate that individuals strive for a certain coherence as a necessary internal state. When contradictions arise among individuals between the baggage of knowledge and actions, they seek to somehow explain such a contradiction, as a result of which they present it as a “non-contradiction” in order to achieve a sense of internal cognitive coherence.

Causes of cognitive dissonance

There are the following factors that cause a state of cognitive dissonance, as a result of which individuals often feel internal dissatisfaction:

— logical inconsistency;

- the dissimilarity of the opinion of one person with the generally accepted;

- unwillingness to follow the norms of culture, established in a certain territory, where traditions are sometimes guided more than legislation;

- the conflict of already experienced experience with a similar new situation.

Cognitive dissonance of the individual arises due to the inadequacy of the two cognitions of the individual. A person, having information on some problem, is forced to ignore them when making a decision, and as a result, there is a discrepancy or dissonance between the individual's ideas and his real actions. As a result of such behavior, a change in certain ideas of the individual is observed. Such a change is justified, based on the vital need of a person to maintain the consistency of one's own knowledge.

That is why humanity is ready to justify its own delusions, because an individual who has committed a misdemeanor tends to seek excuses for himself in his thoughts, while gradually shifting his own attitudes regarding what happened in the direction that what happened in reality is not so terrible. In this way, the individual "manages" his own thinking in order to minimize confrontation within himself.

Festinger's modern theory of cognitive dissonance reveals its purpose in the study and interpretation of contradictions that arise both in individual human individuals and in a group of people.

Everyone during a certain period of time acquires a certain amount of life experience, but overcoming the time limit, he must function according to the circumstances in which he exists, contrary to the knowledge gained. This will cause psychological discomfort. And in order to ease such discomfort of the individual, a compromise has to be found.

Cognitive dissonance in psychology is an attempt to explain the motivation of human actions, their actions in a variety of everyday situations. And emotions are the main motive for the corresponding behavior and actions.

In the concept of cognitive dissonance, knowledge that is logically inconsistent is assigned the status of motivation, which is designed to ensure the elimination of the emerging feeling of discomfort when confronted with inconsistencies through the transformation of existing knowledge or social prescriptions.

The author of the theory of cognitive dissonance, L. Festinger, argued that this state is the strongest motivation. According to the classical formulation of L. Festinger, the dissonance of cognitions is a discrepancy between thoughts, attitudes, information, etc., while the denial of one concept comes from the existence of another.

The concept of cognitive dissonance characterizes methods for eliminating or smoothing out such contradictions and demonstrates how an individual does this in typical cases.

Cognitive dissonance - examples from life: two individuals entered the institute, one of which is a medalist, and the second is a three-year student. Naturally, the teaching staff expects excellent knowledge from a medalist, but nothing is expected from a C grade student. Dissonance occurs when such a three-year-old answers more competently, more fully and fully to a question than a medalist.

Theory of cognitive dissonance

Most motivational theories are first discovered in the writings of ancient philosophers. Today, there are already several dozen such theories. In modern psychological teachings on motivation, which claim to explain human behavior, the cognitive approach to the motivational sphere of the individual is considered to be prevailing today, in the direction of which the phenomena associated with the understanding and knowledge of the individual are of particular importance. The main postulate of the authors of cognitive concepts was the point of view that the behavioral reactions of subjects direct knowledge, judgments, attitudes, ideas, views about what is happening in the world, opinions about causes and their consequences. Knowledge is not a simple collection of data. The ideas of the individual about the world predetermine, construct future behavior. Everything that an individual does and how he does it depends not so much on fixed needs, deep aspirations and eternal desires, but on relatively changeable ideas about reality.

Cognitive dissonance in psychology is a state of discomfort in the psyche of a person, provoked by a confrontation of conflicting ideas in his mind. The socio-psychological doctrine of cognitions was developed to explain changes in cognitions (opinions, attitudes, attitudes) as a method for eliminating logical conflict situations.

Cognitive dissonance of personality is characterized by a specific feature, which consists in linking together and, in other words, the emotional and cognitive components of attitudes.

The state of cognitive dissonance arises as a result of the individual's realization that his actions do not have sufficient grounds, that is, he acts in confrontation with his own attitudes and attitudes, when the personal meaning of behavior is unclear or unacceptable for individuals.

The concept of cognitive dissonance argues that of the likely methods of interpreting and evaluating such a situation (objects) and their own actions in it, the individual prefers those that generate a minimum of anxiety and remorse.

Cognitive dissonance - examples from life were given by A. Leontiev: revolutionary prisoners who were forced to dig holes, of course, perceived such actions as meaningless and unpleasant, a decrease in cognitive dissonance occurred after the prisoners reinterpreted their own actions - they began to think that they were digging the grave of tsarism. This idea contributed to the emergence of an acceptable personal meaning for the activity.

Dissonance of cognitions can arise as a result of past actions. For example, when an individual in a particular situation has committed an act, which then provokes remorse in him, as a result of which amendments can be made to the interpretation of circumstances and their assessment, which eliminate the grounds for experiencing this state. In most cases, this comes out simply, since life circumstances are often ambiguous. So, for example, when a smoker learns about the discovery of a causal relationship between the occurrence of cancerous tumors and smoking, he has many tools aimed at reducing cognitive dissonance. Thus, in accordance with cognitive theories about motivation, the behavior of a person depends on his worldviews and cognitive assessment of the situation.

How to get rid of cognitive dissonance? Often, external attribution or justification is used to eliminate cognitive dissonance. Responsibility for actions can be removed by recognizing them as forced measures (forced, ordered) or justification can be based on self-interest (well paid). In cases where there are few reasons for external justification, then another method is used - changing attitudes. For example, if an individual was forced to lie, then unconsciously he makes adjustments to his initial judgment about reality, adjusting it to a “false statement”, as a result of which it is subjectively transformed into “truth”.

According to a number of postulates, this concept converges with the provisions of the theories of cognitive balance and attribution introduced by the Austrian-American psychologist F. Haider, who based his theories on the principles of Gestalt psychology.

In a variety of situations that arise in everyday life, dissonance can increase or decrease. The degree of its severity depends on the problematic tasks that confront the individual.

Dissonance arises under any conditions, if an individual needs to make a choice. At the same time, its level will increase depending on the degree of importance of this choice for a person.

The presence of dissonance, regardless of the level of its intensity, forces the individual to get rid of it one hundred percent or significantly reduce it, if for some reason this is not yet possible.

To reduce dissonance, an individual can use four methods:

- change your own behavior;

- to transform one of the cognitions, in other words, to assure oneself of the opposite;

- filter incoming information regarding a specific problem;

- apply the criterion of truth to the information received, admit mistakes and act according to a new, more specific and clear understanding of the problem.

Sometimes an individual can prevent the occurrence of this condition and its consequences of internal discomfort by trying to avoid information about his problem that comes into confrontation with the data already available.

The filtering mechanisms of personally significant information for individuals are well spelled out in the theory of Sigmund and Anna Freud on psychological "defenses". The contradiction that arises in the minds of subjects regarding significant deep-personal topics is, according to Z. Freud, a key mechanism in the formation of neuroses.

If dissonance has already arisen, the subject can prevent its multiplication by adding one or more cognition elements to the cognitive circuit to replace the existing negative element that provokes dissonance. Therefore, the subject will be interested in finding such information that will approve his choice and weaken or eliminate this condition completely, while avoiding sources of information that can provoke its increase. Often, such actions of subjects can lead to negative results - the individual may develop a prejudice or fear of dissonance, which is a dangerous factor affecting the views of the individual.

There may be contradictory relations between several cognitive components. When dissonance occurs, individuals tend to reduce its intensity, avoid or completely get rid of it. Such aspiration is justified by the fact that the subject sets as his goal the transformation of his own behavior, finding new information that would relate to the situation or phenomenon that gave rise to dissonance.

It is completely understandable that it is easier for an individual to agree with the existing state of affairs, adjusting his own internal ideas in accordance with the current situation, instead of prolonged reflection on the problem of the correctness of his actions. Often this negative state appears as a result of making serious decisions. The preference for one of the alternatives (equally tempting) is not easy for the individual, but having finally made such a choice, the individual often begins to realize "opposed cognitions", in other words, the positive aspects of the version from which he turned away, and the not entirely positive aspects of that alternative, with which he agreed.

To weaken or completely suppress dissonance, the individual seeks to exaggerate the importance of the judgment he has accepted, at the same time, downplaying the significance of the rejected one. As a result of this behavior, the other alternative loses all attractiveness in his eyes.

Cognitive dissonance and complete dissonance (a state of burdensome tension, feelings of hopelessness, anxiety) have the same adaptive strategies for getting rid of a problem situation, since both dissonance and frustration cause a sense of disharmony in the subjects, which they do their best to avoid. However, along with this dissonance and the situation that provoked it, can be both frustration.

Festinger's cognitive dissonance

Cognitive motivational theories, which are being intensively developed today, originate from the well-known works of L. Festinger.

The theory of cognitive dissonance in Festinger's work has two fundamental advantages that distinguish the scientific concept from the non-scientific one. The first merit lies, to use Einstein's formulation, in its reliance on the most general grounds. From such general grounds, Festinger deduced consequences that could be subjected to experimental verification. This is the second virtue of Festinger's teaching.

Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance implies some kind of confrontation between several cognitions. He treats cognition quite broadly. In his understanding, cognition is any knowledge, belief, opinion about the environment, one's own behavioral reactions or oneself. The negative state is experienced by the subject as a feeling of discomfort, from which he seeks to get rid of and restore inner harmony. It is this desire that is considered the most powerful motivating factor in human behavior and his worldview.

The state of contradiction between cognition X and cognition Y arises if cognition Y does not come out of cognition X. Consonance between X and Y, in turn, is observed when Y comes out of X. consonance. So, for example, an individual who is disposed towards fullness has decided to stick to a diet (X-cognition), but is not able to deny himself a chocolate bar (Y-cognition). An individual who wants to lose weight is not recommended to consume chocolate. This is where the dissonance lies. Its origin motivates the subject to reduce, in other words, to eliminate, reduce dissonance. To solve this problem, the individual has three main ways:

- transform one of the cognitions (in a specific example, stop eating chocolate or complete the diet);

- minimize the significance of the cognitions included in the confrontation relationship (decide that being overweight is not a big sin or that eating chocolate does not affect a significant increase in body weight);

- add new cognition (a bar of chocolate increases weight, but along with this, it has a beneficial effect on the intellectual sphere).

The last two methods are a kind of adaptive strategy, that is, the individual adapts while maintaining the problem.

Cognitive dissonance requires reduction and motivates it, leads to a modification of attitudes, and then behavior.

Below are two of the most famous effects associated with the appearance and elimination of cognitive dissonance.

The first one occurs in a situation of behavior that conflicts with the individual's evaluative attitude towards something. If the subject agrees to do something, without coercion, in any way inconsistent with his attitudes, point of view, and if such behavior does not have a convincing external justification (monetary reward), then subsequently attitudes and views are transformed in the direction of greater conformity of behavior. In the case when the subject agrees to actions that are slightly contrary to his moral values or moral guidelines, the result of this will be the appearance of a dissonance between moral beliefs and knowledge about behavior, and in the future, beliefs will change in the direction of lowering morality.

The second effect, obtained in the course of research on cognition dissonance, is called dissonance after making a difficult decision. A decision is called difficult when alternative phenomena or objects from which one has to make a choice are equally attractive. In such cases, most often, after making a choice, that is, after making a decision, the individual experiences cognitive dissonance, which is a consequence of the ensuing contradictions. After all, in the chosen version, on the one hand, there are negative aspects, and in the rejected version, on the other hand, positive features are found. In other words, the accepted alternative is somewhat bad, but still accepted. The rejected version is partly good, but rejected. In the course of an experimental analysis of the results of a difficult decision, it was revealed that over time, after making such a decision, the subjective attractiveness of the chosen alternative increases and the subjective attractiveness of the rejected alternative decreases.

The individual is thus freed from cognitive dissonance. In other words, the person convinces himself about the chosen option that such an option is not just slightly better than the rejected one, but significantly better. By such actions, the subject, as it were, expands the alternatives. From this, we can conclude that complex decisions increase the likelihood of behavioral responses corresponding to the chosen option.

For example, when an individual has been tormented for a long time by the choice between cars of brand “A” and “B”, but in the end give preference to brand “B”, then in the future the chance of choosing cars of brand “B” will be slightly higher than before its acquisition. This is due to the increase in the relative attractiveness of brand "B" cars.

Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance is a specific variation of problem situations. Therefore, it is necessary to determine with the help of what protective mechanisms and non-protective adaptive tools the adaptive strategy is carried out, if it is used to rid the individual of dissonances. Such a strategy may be unsuccessful and cause an increase in dissonance, giving rise to new frustrations.

There are also forces that resist the reduction of dissonance. For example, a change in behavior and judgments about such behavior often change, but sometimes it is difficult or lossy. It is difficult, for example, to abandon habitual actions, since they please the individual. New cognitive dissonance and complete frustration may arise as a result of the transformation of other variations of habitual behavior, which entails material and financial losses. There are forms of behavior that generate dissonance, which the individual is not able to modify (phobic reactions).

In conclusion, we can say that Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance is quite simple and, in summary, looks like this:

- may exist between the cognitive elements of the relationship of inconsistency;

- the emergence of dissonance contributes to the emergence of a desire to reduce its impact and avoid its further growth;

- manifestations of such a desire are in the transformation of behavioral response, the modification of attitudes, or in the conscious search for new opinions and information regarding the judgment or phenomenon that gave rise to dissonance.

Examples of cognitive dissonance

What is cognitive dissonance? The definition of this concept lies in the understanding that every action of an individual that goes against his knowledge or beliefs will provoke the emergence of dissonance. It does not matter whether such actions are forced or not.

How to get rid of cognitive dissonance? In order to understand this, we can consider behavioral strategies with examples. This condition can cause the simplest daily life situations. For example, an individual stands at a bus stop and sees two subjects in front of him, one of which gives the impression of a respectable and successful man, and the second resembles a homeless person. These two people are eating something in a wrapper. According to the knowledge of the individual, the first subject must throw the wrapper into the urn, which is located at the same stop three steps away from him, and the second subject, in his opinion, will most likely throw the piece of paper in the same place, that is, he will not bother to to come and throw the trash in the bin. Dissonance occurs when an individual sees the behavior of subjects that is contrary to his ideas. In other words, when a respectable man throws a wrapper at his feet and when a homeless person overcomes a distance of three steps to throw a piece of paper into the trash, a contradiction sets in - opposite ideas collide in the mind of an individual.

Another example. The individual desires to acquire an athletic physique. After all, it is beautiful, attracts the views of the opposite sex, allows you to feel good, improves health. To achieve the goal, he needs to start exercising regularly, normalize his diet, try to follow the regime and adhere to a certain daily routine, or find a bunch of excuses that indicate that he doesn’t really need it (not enough money or free time, allegedly bad well-being, physique within normal limits). Any actions of the individual, therefore, will be directed towards reducing dissonance - liberation from confrontation within himself.

In this case, it is almost always possible to avoid the appearance of cognitive dissonance. Often this is facilitated by the elementary ignoring of any information regarding the problematic issue, which may differ from the available one. In the case of an already emerging state of dissonance, its further development and strengthening should be neutralized by adding new beliefs to the system of one's own ideas, replacing the old ones with them. An example of this is the behavior of a smoker who understands that smoking is harmful to the health of him and those around him. The smoker is in a state of dissonance. He can get out of it:

- changing behavior - quit smoking;

- changing knowledge (to convince yourself of the exaggerated danger of smoking or to convince yourself that all information about the dangers of smoking is completely unreliable);

- perceiving any messages about the dangers of smoking with caution, in other words, simply ignore them.

However, often such a strategy can lead to fear of dissonance, prejudices, personality disorders, and sometimes neuroses.

What does cognitive dissonance mean? In simple terms, its definition is as follows. Dissonance is a state in which a person feels discomfort caused by the presence of two or more conflicting knowledge (beliefs, ideas) about one phenomenon. Therefore, in order not to feel painfully cognitive dissonance, one should simply accept the fact that such a phenomenon simply takes place. It must be understood that the contradictions between some elements of a person's belief system and the real state of things will invariably be reflected in being. And the acceptance and realization that absolutely everything can be completely different from one’s own thoughts, positions, ideas and beliefs allows one to avoid dissonances.

100 r first order bonus

Choose the type of work Graduation work Term paper Abstract Master's thesis Report on practice Article Report Review Test work Monograph Problem solving Business plan Answers to questions Creative work Essay Drawing Compositions Translation Presentations Typing Other Increasing the uniqueness of the text Candidate's thesis Laboratory work Help on-line

Ask for a price

The cognitive dissonance- the state of the individual, characterized by a collision in his mind of conflicting knowledge, beliefs, behavioral attitudes regarding some object or phenomenon, in which the denial of another follows from the existence of one element, and the feeling of incompleteness of life associated with this discrepancy.

The theory of cognitive dissonance has been proposed Leon Festinger in 1957 d. It is an explanation of conflict situations that often arise "in the cognitive structure of one person." theory puts its goal explain and explore the state of cognitive dissonance that occurs in a person as a reaction to a certain situation, the actions of individuals or the whole team, that is, his internal state and experiences.

Leon Festinger formulates two main hypotheses his theory:

1. In the event of a dissonance, the individual will do his best to reduce the degree of discrepancy between his two attitudes, trying to achieve consonance (correspondence). This is due to the fact that dissonance gives rise to "psychological discomfort".

2. The second hypothesis, emphasizing the first one, says that, in an effort to reduce the discomfort that has arisen, the individual will try to avoid such situations in which the discomfort may increase.

The emergence of dissonance.

Dissonance can appear for various reasons:

Due to a logical inconsistency;

- “because of cultural practices”;

In the event that an individual opinion is part of a broader opinion;

Due to the inconsistency of past experience with the present situation.

Cognitive dissonance arises from a mismatch between the two "cognitions" (or "knowledge") of an individual. An individual, having information on any issue, is forced to neglect it when making a certain decision. As a result, there is a discrepancy (“dissonance”) between a person’s attitudes and his real actions.

As a result of such behavior, there is a change in certain (which the situation affects in one way or another) attitudes of a person, and this change can be justified on the basis that it is vital for a person to maintain the consistency of his knowledge.

Therefore, people are ready to justify their delusions: a person who has committed a misconduct or mistake tends to justify himself in his thoughts, gradually shifting his beliefs about what happened in the direction 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, for example, a person 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 where a person has to make a choice. Moreover, the degree of dissonance will grow depending on how important this choice is for the individual.

Reducing dissonance.

It is clear that the existence of dissonance, regardless of the degree of its strength, forces a person to get rid of it completely, and if for some reason this is not yet possible, then significantly reduce it. To reduce dissonance, a person can resort to four methods:

1. change your behavior;

2. change "cognition", that is, convince yourself of the opposite;

3. filter incoming information regarding a given issue or problem.

4. development of the first method: apply the criterion of truth to the information received, admit your mistakes and act in accordance with a new, more complete and clear understanding of the problem.

Let's explain this with a specific example. For example, a person is a heavy smoker. He receives information about the dangers of smoking - from a doctor, a friend, from a newspaper or from another source. According to the information received, he will either change his behavior - that is, stop smoking, because he is convinced that it is too harmful to his health. Or he can deny that smoking harms his body, try, for example, to find some information that smoking can be “useful” to some extent (for example, while he smokes, he will not gain excess weight, as it happens when a person quits smoking), and thereby reduce the importance of negative information. This reduces the dissonance between his knowledge and actions. In the third case, he will try to avoid any information that emphasizes the harm of smoking.

Dissonance prevention and avoidance.

In some cases, an individual can prevent the appearance of dissonance and, as a result, internal discomfort by trying to avoid any negative information regarding his problem. If the dissonance has already arisen, then the individual can avoid reinforcing it by adding one or more cognitive elements "into the cognitive schema" in place of the existing negative element (which generates the dissonance). Thus, the individual will be interested in finding such information that would approve his choice (his decision) and, in the end, would weaken or completely eliminate dissonance, while avoiding sources of information that will increase it. However, frequent 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 affecting the individual's worldview.

1. between two (or more) cognitive elements there may be a relationship of inconsistency (dissonance);

2. when dissonance occurs, the individual seeks to reduce its degree, avoid or get rid of it completely;

3. this aspiration is justified by the fact that the person sets as his goal the change of his behavior, the search for new information concerning the situation or the object that “gave rise to dissonance”.

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 suffer from the question of whether he did the right thing. Often dissonance arises as a consequence of making important decisions. The choice of 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 features of the one with which he agreed. In order to suppress (weaken) dissonance, a person tries with all his might to exaggerate the significance of his decision, while at the same time downplaying the importance of the rejected one. As a consequence, the other alternative loses all appeal in his eyes.

The theory of cognitive dissonance L. Festinger

Theory cognitive dissonance L. Festinger argues that a person has a positive emotional experience when his expectations are confirmed, and cognitive ideas are brought to life, i.e. when the actual results of the activity correspond to the intended ones, are consistent with them, or, what is the same, are in consonance. Negative emotions arise and intensify in cases where there is a discrepancy, inconsistency or dissonance between the expected and actual results of the activity.

Subjectively, the state of cognitive dissonance is usually experienced by a person as discomfort, and he seeks to get rid of it as soon as possible. The way out of the state of cognitive dissonance can be twofold: either change cognitive expectations and plans in such a way that they correspond to the actual result obtained, or try to get a new result that would be consistent with previous expectations.

In modern psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance is often used to explain the actions of a person, his actions in various social situations. Emotions are considered as the main motive for the corresponding actions and deeds. The underlying cognitive factors are given a much greater role in determining human behavior than organic changes.

The dominant cognitivist orientation of modern psychological research has led to the fact that conscious assessments that a person gives to situations are also considered as emotiogenic factors. It is believed that such assessments directly affect the nature of emotional experience.

2.3.1. Essence of dissonance

2.3.2. Causes and magnitude of dissonance

that a glass of ice will not melt at +20°C; it is known that people are mortal, but I think that I will live forever, etc.;

A p B and B n C includes A r C,

2.3.3. Ways to Reduce Dissonance

As already mentioned, there are three ways to reduce dissonance.

2.3.4. Dissonance and conflict

This is where the difference between the strategies in conflict and dissonance arises: if in the first case full information was involved, here information, as always in case of dissonance, is attracted selectively, namely, only that which allows increasing the attractiveness of the chosen one in the presence of an alternative. The goal pursued in this case is to portray the decision as the most reasonable, to “justify” it. Therefore, we can say that the conflict that occurs before the solution is more "objective", while the dissonance that occurs after the solution is entirely "subjective". Less objectivity and more bias in considering alternatives after a decision is made are defined by Festinger as the "rationalization" of the decision. Deutsch and Krauss, commenting on this provision, believe that the introduction of the psychoanalytic term "rationalization" allows us to interpret the desire to reduce dissonance after a decision as one of the "protective mechanisms" . Festinger himself in an interview emphasized that dissonance and rationalization have only a mechanism in common, while the theoretical justification for its content is completely different in two different theories. For Festinger, rationalization is important primarily from the point of view of a more rigorous analysis of all possible alternatives to human behavior. The very "anatomy" of dissonance and conflict is very useful from this point of view, and it is this part of the theory of dissonance that has stimulated numerous experimental studies.

Festinger very carefully describes in his work a large number of experiments that explore various factors that contribute to the reduction of dissonance after a decision is made.

In particular, the study of Brem (1956) is well known, when he gave the subjects alternative solutions and offered to choose one of them. After some time, it was proposed to evaluate both the chosen and the rejected solution. In all cases, the chosen solutions were rated higher than those rejected. Aronson and Mills (1957) created a situation in which the subjects expended some effort to join a certain group, after which they were convinced that the group was "bad". The subjects reduced the resulting dissonance, trying to identify or simply "see" the positive characteristics of the group, to rate it higher. Aronson and Carlsmith (1963) experimented with children who had a toy taken away from them and even punished for using the toy. As a result, children began to especially love this toy. These and numerous other experiments are usually regarded as evidence of the productivity of the theory of dissonance. It was in the course of these experiments that many provisions of the theory were further developed. Thus, Festinger supplements it with an analysis of such phenomena as forced consent, when the dissonance is generated by the presence of a threat or the prospect of punishment, forced information impact, which also contributes to the creation or maintenance of dissonance. A special place is occupied by the study of the role social support created in a group where disagreements appear, and one of the positions contributes either to strengthening or weakening the dissonance. In this regard, Festinger proceeds to analyze a number of "macro-phenomena": the role of rumors in society, mass conversion, and other forms of social influence. All this testifies to the significance and importance of the theory of cognitive dissonance.

True, the experiments themselves, in which individual hypotheses are tested, are not rigorous enough and are vulnerable in many respects. Aronson owns a rather peculiar "justification" of them. He believes that many of the inaccuracies of the theory of dissonance grow out of the more general methodological difficulties of the socio-psychological experiment. “This weakness,” writes Aronson, “is hardly the fault of theory. Methodological difficulties concern all theories that predict socio-psychological phenomena. They associate with the theory of dissonance simply because it produces the maximum amount of research. These general difficulties do exist, and one can agree with Aronson in characterizing some of them (for example, the lack of standardized techniques for operationalizing concepts in social psychology, the fact that alternative explanations for empirical results are possible and rather frequent, etc.). But all these are, indeed, general problems of social psychology, so that bringing them up as an argument in the analysis of one specific theory, although appropriate, is clearly not enough.

2.3.5. Critical comments

It is necessary to identify certain miscalculations within the theory of cognitive dissonance itself. Some of them are also quite general, although they are no longer inherent in all social psychology, but only in the whole class of correspondence theories. The main weakness of this order is a rather contradictory and ambiguous solution to the question of the motivating meaning of dissonance. As already noted, in different presentations of the theory we are talking about different things: then about the motivating value of dissonance for behavior, then about its motivating value for restructuring cognitive structure. But these are fundamentally different things, and the “approximate” nature of the description of this problem is, of course, a significant flaw in the theory. Some dissatisfaction with the development of the problem of motivation is felt by the author of the theory himself: “Throughout this book, we have said almost nothing about motivation. Of course, dissonance can be considered as a motivating factor, but there are many other motives that influence a person. And besides, we left out of our analysis the question of the relationship between the main motives of a person and the desire to reduce dissonance" [Festinger, 1999, p. 314].

It is also doubtful to constantly operate with only a couple of isolated cognitive elements, to consider only their relations. Here again the question arises about the right to existence of a certain model in the system of socio-psychological knowledge. The unconditional recognition of such a right does not mean a reduction in requirements for the principles of building a model. One of such fundamental, methodological issues of modeling is the legitimacy of singling out one or another connection as the basis of the model. In this case, the question arises: is it permissible to take the interaction of two elements as the basis for analyzing the dynamics of the cognitive structure? Doesn't this fact already indicate the extreme limitations of the proposed model? One gets the impression that such an isolated pair of cognitions, which is considered when explaining the occurrence of a discrepancy, is very weakly amenable to further pairing it with other elements of the cognitive structure, and this practically does not allow one to proceed to complex systems of interaction of cognitive elements. Despite the relatively good, as V.P. Trusov rightly notes [Trusov, 1973], in comparison with other correspondence theories, the development of the theory of dissonance, despite the long history of its productive existence (if we bear in mind the numerous experiments), the question has never been was transferred to the plane of consideration of the content of dissonance when taking into account the whole system cognitive elements that form the cognitive structure of a person.

Finally, serious objections remain with regard to psychology, which is introduced as an obligatory component in the assertion of the basic principle of the theory of dissonance. The attempt of a more thorough development of its problems proposed by Abelson and Rosenberg gave only more or less formalized statements of the judgments of common sense, of everyday everyday psychology. Raising the important question that people in everyday actions are not necessarily guided by the requirements of logic, but by other "reasons", Abelson and Rosenberg, of course, did not make these reasons more stringent. Therefore the sacramental formula "not X follows from Y" remains open to arbitrary interpretations.

D. Katz rightly notes that the psychological level of inconsistencies (along with the logical level and the level of the unconscious), found in the theory of dissonance, is, of course, significant in itself, since it allows the individual, as it were, to "weigh" the inconsistency in comparison with his personal experience, social position, accepted values, etc., but it also does not lead beyond the purely cognitive sphere as a "receptacle" of these inconsistencies. Katz writes that here, too, the discrepancy appears as a "conflict of incongruent elements," while the question of "the historical forces responsible for this conflict" is left out. Although in a very peculiar form, Katz comes here to demand a more careful study of the "objective environment". The theory of dissonance, like all cognitive theories, simply does not pose this question: the contradictions within the human cognitive system are not analyzed at all from the point of view of what real contradictions of the surrounding world are reflected in them (unless, of course, we leave the area of everyday life and try to analyze the essential characteristics of this "environment").

Apparently, the words of Deutsch and Krauss, which complete the analysis of Festinger's ideas, can serve as rather weak consolation for the theory of cognitive dissonance: “Undoubtedly, Festinger is more interesting than right. And such an attitude towards him is perfectly reasonable. At the present stage of development of social psychology, no one is "right" for a long time. The life span of any theory is very short. Dissonance theory has stimulated a great deal of research and has drawn attention to a number of interesting patterns, especially in the field of the psychological analysis of conflict. But the main task - explaining the motivation of human behavior - turned out to be unfulfilled. The general limitations of the theories of correspondence, the lack of attempts to go beyond the limits of only the cognitive organization of a person into a wider area of social conditions of his existence, did not allow them to overcome this boundary even with their further development.

The logic of the development of these theories within the framework of the accepted conceptual scheme does not reveal exits to the sphere of social reality in other versions of the approach. Searches rush in a completely different direction, they are aimed at improving theories inside accepted unified framework for posing the problem. In particular, the search is aimed at improving the analysis of the very nature of cognitive inconsistency, at the most accurate description of it. In this respect, the following from the correspondence theory provides new material.

Leon Festinger's cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger "Cognitive Dissonance Theory" - review - Effective Life Psychology - online journal

Read also

Causes of cognitive dissonance

Theory of cognitive dissonance

Festinger's cognitive dissonance

Examples of cognitive dissonance

The theory of cognitive dissonance L. Festinger