Cognitive dissonance

"The bitch and the grapes", a fable of Esopo. When the bitch doesn't get to the grapes, she decides she doesn't want them.

In psychology, the term cognitive dissonance refers to the tension or internal disharmony of the system of ideas, beliefs and emotions (cognitions) perceived by a person who has two thoughts that are in conflict at the same time. conflict, or for behavior that conflicts with your beliefs. That is, the term refers to the perception of incompatibility of two simultaneous cognitions, all of which can impact their attitudes.

The concept was formulated for the first time in 1957 by the American psychologist Leon Festinger, in his work A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Spanish edition, Theory of cognitive dissonance). Festinger's theory states that, when this incongruity or dissonance occurs in a very appreciable way, the person is automatically motivated to make an effort to generate new ideas and beliefs to reduce the tension until achieving that the set of their ideas and attitudes fit together, constituting a certain internal coherence.

The way dissonance reduction occurs can take many different paths or forms. A very notable one is a change of attitude or ideas in the face of reality.

Dissonance reduction

The motivation for dissonance reduction is due to the psychological stress that an individual has to endure when their cognitive system exhibits great internal dissonance or incoherence. For example, a person with values and moral beliefs instilled in him from childhood can be involved in actions that he himself would reject (wars, deaths, torture,...), so he is motivated to introduce new values that would justify his attitude: the defense of the Homeland, avoiding greater evils, and so on.

Give Back Mentality

In decision-making, the effect of cognitive dissonance is also very important^{[citation needed]}. When there is an effort or cost, it is consistent that this cost or penalty is followed by an appreciable reward. Everyone seeks success^{[citation required]}, which is nothing more than the reward for effort^{[citation required]< /sup>. On the contrary, failure is dissonant; It occurs when effort or cost is not followed by reward. In these cases, the individual can reduce the consequent dissonance by looking for another possible future reward: You only learn from mistakes, this will serve to avoid future mistakes... Other times, when an alternative has been chosen that does not It has turned out as satisfactory as thought, advantages can be found that had not been detected before. For this reason, after an important purchase, the buyer tends to value the purchased product better than before the purchase[citation required].}

In philosophy, however, this type of cognitive dissonance is not interpreted as a phenomenon inherent to the human being, but as a mentality derived from religious thought as a response to discomfort or pain^{[citation required]}. Such mentality is known as retributive mentality, because it is understood as a morally necessary retribution to effort, sacrifice and pain that per se lack value. It is common^{[citation required]} in all religions around the world and forms part of the residue of modern mentality at many times in our lives^{[ citation required]}.

Examples

Meat consumption

Eating meat can lead to discrepancies between the action of eating meat and a person's inner values. Some researchers call this moral conflict the meat paradox. Hank Rothgerber postulated that meat eaters may find a conflict between their eating habit and their affection for animals. This occurs when the dissonance involves the recognition of their own behavior as a meat eater and the belief, attitude or value that this action contradicts. The person in this state can use various methods to prevent this dissonance from occurring, such as avoidance, willful ignorance, dissociation, change in behavior perception, and do-gooder abrogation. When dissonance occurs, the person can counteract it with justify-driven cognitions. that act, such as the denigration of animals, the search for arguments in favor of meat, or the denial of one's own responsibility.

The extent of cognitive dissonance in relation to meat consumption varies according to an individual's attitudes and values, which can determine whether or not there is any moral conflict between their values and what they eat. For example, people with dominant tendencies and who value a masculine personality are less likely to experience this dissonance as they tend to think less that eating meat is morally reprehensible.

Tobacco

The International Tobacco Control (ITC) study Patterns of Reducing Cognitive Dissonance Among Smokers: A Longitudinal Analysis (2012) noted that smokers use a belief system as a justification for reducing their cognitive dissonance between tobacco smoking and negative consequences to do it.

1. Recurrent smokers (who smoked and didn't try to leave behind the first round of the study)
2. Ex-fumadores (who stopped smoking after the first round of the study and did not do it again upon reaching the second)
3. Failed former smokers (who stopped smoking after the first round but returned to smoke)

To reduce cognitive dissonance, participants adjusted their beliefs to fit their actions:

1. Functional beliefs: ("Fumar calms me when I am stressed or upset."; "Fumar helps me concentrate better."; "Fumar is an important part of my life."; and "Fumar makes me easier to socialize.")
2. Risk minimization beliefs ("The medical evidence that smoking is harmful is exaggerated."; "We all have to die for something, so why not enjoy and smoke?"; and "Smoking is no more risky than other things people do.")

Trade

A classic experiment conducted by Leon Festinger demonstrated the existence of cognitive dissonance. The experiment consisted of asking a series of subjects to perform a very boring task. At the end of the task, he divided the subjects into three groups, asked them what they thought of the task, and they all thought it was very boring. To the subjects in the first group, the control group, he told them that the experiment was over and they could go. To the subjects in the second group, he told them that there was a person outside who had to do the task, but that she was not very convinced, so she would give them $1 if they told her that the task was a lot of fun. With those in the third group he did the same, but instead of a dollar he gave them 20. Later, the members of the second group would be informed that those in the third group received a larger sum of money.

After a week, Festinger called all the subjects back to ask them again what they thought of the task. Those in the first and third groups reaffirmed their previous answer, that the task had been very boring. Surprisingly, he found that those in the second group thought the task was fun. The explanation why the second group changed their mind is that knowing that they received less money than the third group, they were forced to change their mind, since they had no justification.

In the field of the market, it refers to the change of mind when knowing that one has been cheated or deceived after a purchase ("Anyway it helps me...", "On second thought, is what I need for...").

Interpretation from the affective and cognitive components of the attitude

Cognitive dissonance implies a certain lack of coherence between attitude and action. Robert A. Baron and Donn Byrne wrote: “Unfortunately, cognitive dissonance is a very common experience. Anytime you say things you don't really believe, make a difficult decision, or discover that something you bought isn't as good as you hoped, you may experience dissonance. In all of these situations, there is a jump between our actions and our attitudes that tends to make us feel quite uncomfortable."

Bearing in mind that our characteristic attitude is made up of both affective and cognitive components, it can be said that the lack of coherence that we experience in dissonance is due to the lack of coincidence between our wanting and our thinking. Thus, if suddenly an acquaintance with whom we have had a certain previous disagreement appears, we must adopt a definite position: not greet them, for example, or pretend that one feels that nothing has happened. If we have time to anticipate the situation, it is possible that the dissonance will be less, while, if the situation occurs suddenly, it is possible that we later reconsider because we are not completely convinced with the attitude adopted. Hence, it can be considered that all dissonance occurs when there is an internal conflict between our affective and cognitive components. This conflict leads us to change our attitude.

From this point of view, we could talk about cognitive-affective dissonance, which has other implications, such as being, possibly, the psychological support of moral conscience. Let's imagine a situation in which we selfishly favor ourselves while simultaneously harming someone else. Knowing the effects of our action will make us feel guilty. Hence, the dissonance or incoherence between the components of the attitude will appear in every individual who has developed his moral conscience. And that is why it is possible to identify them.

Conditions of existence

Regarding the conditions for the existence of dissonance, Saul Kassin, Steven Fein, and Hazel Rose Marcus write:

• an act with undesirable consequences.
• a feeling of personal responsibility.
• psychological activation or discomfort.
• attribution of activation to discrepant act with attitudes.