Sandberg 1

Elyse Sandberg
Dr. Langan
Comm Theory
16 October 2015

Cognitive Dissonance: Reviewing Dissonance Research

Leon Festinger was a social psychologist best known for his work on

Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Festinger built this theory upon the notion that

individuals strive towards consistency within themselves. He focused on the

consistency sought between beliefs and actions. He claimed that if one is

unable to rationalize a certain inconsistency within themselves, the

inconsistency will continue to exist, and inevitably, will bring about

psychological discomfort. He referred to this psychological discomfort as

dissonance.

Festingers two basic hypotheses are, The existence of dissonance,

being psychologically uncomfortable, will motivate the person to try to

reduce the dissonance and achieve consonance, and, When dissonance is

present, in addition to trying to reduce it, the person will actively avoid

situations and information which would likely increase the dissonance

(Festinger 3). In order to clarify, he relates dissonance to feelings such as

hunger or frustration, feelings we would not allow to go unmet. He says,

Cognitive dissonance can be seen as an antecedent condition which leads

to activity oriented toward dissonance reduction just as hunger leads to

activity toward hunger reduction (Festinger 3). This paper will pertain

entirely to the former of these two hypotheses, and more specifically, to

what causes the existence of dissonance in the first place. Since Festinger
 Sandberg 2

first published his theory, numerous psychologists have disagreed with him

about the causes of dissonance, and sought to research and redefine

dissonance arousal themselves. This paper will review the research that

social psychologists have done in order to explore the causes of dissonance

beyond Festingers original hypothesis.

In order to begin discussing differing views on the causes of

dissonance, Festingers original definition and exploration of cognitive

dissonance must be understood. Dissonance refers to relations between

cognitions. Festinger defined cognitions as, the things a person knows about

himself, about his behavior, and about his surroundings (Festinger 9).

Therefore, he defines dissonance as, the distressing mental state that

people feel when they find themselves doing things that dont fit with what

they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold

(Griffin 200). Festinger believes that dissonance is an everyday condition.

The circumstances he wished to observe are those where dissonance arises

and persists more than momentarily, which he believes happens when an

individual holds two established beliefs or values that are inconsistent with

each other.

He first published his theory in 1957, and used his famous 1$/20$

experiment to demonstrate his belief that dissonance is experienced from

inconsistent cognitions. This experiment involves students engaging in a

boring task, and then lying about the task to other students. Some students

were offered 20$ to do this, while others were offered only 1$. Festinger
 Sandberg 3

found that students who lied for 1$ experienced dissonance because they

could not justify their behavior as the students who were paid 20$ could. The

1$ students ended up changing their attitude towards the task, convincing

themselves that they really did find it enjoyable in order to avoid feeling

dissonance over deceiving innocent people for such a small amount of

money. This proved Festingers hypothesis that people will change either

their actions or attitudes in order to avoid dissonance. This study has been

replicated many times in order to identify the true cause of dissonance

arousal within a person. This is the research this paper will explore,

specifically looking at research led by Joel Cooper, Elliot Aronson, and Eddie

Harmon-Jones.

Joel Cooper, a professor of psychology at Princeton University, has

been a leading researcher of dissonance theory for decades now. In 1984, he

and his colleague Russell Fazio, psychology professor at Indiana University,

published, A New Look at Dissonance Theory, in which they claim that

Festingers original definition of dissonance is no longer adequate to describe

the causes and process of dissonance arousal in a person. Cooper and Fazios

main argument is that dissonance comes primarily from feeling personally

responsible for an aversive event. Their theory has, since, been widely

referred to as the New Look Theory.

Elliot Aronson, former psychology professor at University of California,

also believes that Festingers original hypothesis of dissonance arousal is no

longer adequate to explain the phenomena of dissonance. Similar to Cooper

 Sandberg 4

and Fazio, Aronson claimed that as the theory encountered further

speculation from researchers, inconsistent cognitions by themselves were

not enough to produce dissonance within a person. However, unlike Cooper

and Fazio, Aronson believes that dissonance has everything to do with

cognitions being inconsistent with a persons self-concept. In 1992, he

published what has come to be known as his self-concept formulation of

dissonance theory, which takes a closer look at the role that an individuals

self-concept plays in forming dissonance.

Most recently, in 2000, Eddie Harmon-Jones, psychology professor at

the University of Wisconsin-Madison, published a piece on cognitive

dissonance and negative affect, in which he challenges Cooper and Fazios

New Look theory. Harmon-Jones supports and argues for Festingers original

theory; taking the stance that dissonance is experienced regardless of

aversive outcomes. It follows that Harmon-Jones also disagrees with

Aronsons claim of dissonance having everything to do with ones self-

concept. Exploring and comparing the research that has been done in the

years following Festingers original publication of cognitive dissonance theory

allows one to have a better understanding of dissonance arousal within an

individual.

Cooper and company conducted many experiments to identify the

precise conditions that lead to dissonance-produced attitude change. In

these experiments, they found that the arousal of dissonance has little to do

with the inconsistency of cognitions as Festinger suggested, and much more

 Sandberg 5

to do with the production of an unwanted outcome (to which they refer to as

an aversive event.) Cooper believes that Festinger came to the conclusion

that dissonance is produced as a result of inconsistent cognitions only

because those inconsistent cognitions are directly related to the production

of an unwanted event. Coopers claim was further studied by various other

theorists, including Aronson, who also found that attitude change as a result

of dissonance is directly related to the actual, or even the potential, bringing

about of an irrevocable aversive event. Cooper claimed this was the first and

key step to the arousal of cognitive dissonance. He says, Aversive

consequences lead to the tension state that we call cognitive dissonance

only under a special combination of circumstances. This occurs when a

person is led to make a personal or internal attribution for having brought

about an unwanted event. We call such an attribution the assumption of

personal responsibility (Cooper 236). Cooper identifies that most people are

motivated to deny personal responsibility for an event in order to avoid

feeling dissonance, hence the direct connection between the two. This

happens either by claiming an event was coerced due to environmental

pressures, or claiming that it was an unforeseeable consequence of an

individuals behavior. If one can escape feeling personally responsible for an

unwanted event due to one of these two things, then dissonance will be

avoided. His research and experiments all point to the idea that dissonance

comes not from inconsistent cognitions, but from the bringing about of

aversive consequences that one feels responsible for.

 Sandberg 6

Aronsons self-concept formulation supports Coopers New Look

position. Aronson and his colleagues reviewed Festingers original

experiment as well, finding that the arousal of dissonance in subjects was

likely to come not solely from inconsistency, but from the cause of an

aversive event (deceiving innocent students). This is in full support of the

New Look theory. However, Aronson believes that the New Look position

cannot fully explain dissonance arousal without acknowledging the role of

the self-concept. Aronson claimed that most people have positive self-

concepts, understanding the moral values in a society, and most often,

striving to live by them. Therefore, dissonance will be aroused in a person if

an action reflects negatively on the integrity and self-worth of the person

who performed it(Aronson 592). He believes that dissonance is a result of

the full meaning of an act being inconsistent with the actors self-concept.

Aronson and company claimed that the dissonance felt in Festingers

experiment was a result of the individuals self-esteem being threatened

from feeling personally responsible for an aversive event. Cooper and

Aronson fully agree that personal responsibility is linked to dissonance, but

Aronson credits this to the direct connection of personal responsibility to an

individuals self-concept. He says, Feeling responsible for a behavior means

that the person acknowledges the act as a true expression of the selfs

potentiality, on the basis of which further inferences can be made about the

nature of the self and its worth (Aronson 596). Therefore, dissonance is not

felt simply from inconsistent cognitions or the responsibility of bringing about

 Sandberg 7

an aversive event, but from the threats that these things have on an

individuals self-concept.

To summarize the research thus far, Festinger believed his experiment

proved that dissonance was aroused due to inconsistent cognitions. Cooper

rejected this, believing the experiment proved that dissonance was aroused

due to the individual feeling personally responsible for the bringing about of

an aversive event. Aronson agreed with this, but took it a step further,

claiming that dissonance was aroused in the experiment because the

responsibility of bringing about an aversive event threatened the individuals

self-concept. The research of Eddie Harmon-Jones gives an idea of where the

research of this theory is at today, and where it may be heading in the

future.

Harmon-Jones has most recently taken a look at the experiments and

research that has been done since Festinger first proposed his theory in the

1950s. He challenges Cooper and Aronsons research on dissonance caused

by aversive effects. Harmon-Jones writes about the New Look thoery, This

revision has been considered one of the most compelling, leading prominent

observers to conclude that dissonance effects only occur when persons

freely choose to cause an aversive consequence (1491). He studied this

research, as well as more experiments that have been conducted, and found

many flaws in these experiments that have tested the effects of aversive

consequences on dissonance. He found that dissonance may have been felt

in experiments even when there was no attitude change due to aversive

 Sandberg 8

effects, and therefore, measuring dissonance on the basis of a change in

attitude may be insufficient. He concluded, then, that there are too many

plausible alternative explanations in these experiments to have abandoned

the original version of the theory, and set out to test whether or not

dissonance is experienced regardless of an aversive affect (1492). What

Harmon-Jones and company found was that dissonance is associated with

increased feelings of negative affect, even in situations where there were no

aversive consequences. In the experiments they conducted in 1996, the

research showed that the production of aversive consequences may intensify

feelings of dissonance, but is not necessary for it to be brought about in the

first place. In Harmon-Jones experiments, the participants did not lose a

reward, gain a punishment, tell a lie to another person, or inflict any other

kind of injury on other persons (1492). The benefit was simply abstract, and

the inconsistency between their perception and statement of their

experience was enough to create dissonance. This supports the increased

line of thinking that experienced negative affect is associated with, and

sufficient, to produce cognitive dissonance. In other words, the experiments

proved that emotion can be aroused by the sheer discrepancy between

cognitions, which supports Festingers original theory and disproves the

aversive consequences revisions. Therefore, Harmon-Jones came to the

conclusion that Festingers original cognitive dissonance theory is still

accurate, and does not need to be supplemented by the new look theory of

Cooper, or the self-concept theory of Aronson.

 Sandberg 9

The research conducted on cognitive dissonance theory in the past fifty

years has come full-circle; from psychologists critiquing the theory,

proposing alternatives, and conducting new experiments (Cooper and

Aronson), to studying the research and concluding that Festinger was right in

the first place (Harmon-Jones)-this theory has undergone much speculation.

The question that follows is, Who is right? Who truly understands cognitive

dissonance? What actually causes the arousal of dissonance in an individual?

In 2007, Harmon-Jones published a study titled, Cognitive Dissonance

Theory After 50 years of Development. This piece looks at where dissonance

theory has come and where it is heading in the future; giving the inclination

that this theory is not close to being complete. Harmon-Jones says, As

dissonance theory celebrates its 50th birthday, it is clear that this middle-

aged theory has weathered many challenges but still provides much

explanatory, integrative, and generative power (14). He seeks to synthesize

the research that has been done and make sense of all of the different

proposals over the last fifty years.

Harmon-Jones believes that the majority of the research that has been

done has supported Festingers original concept of dissonance. He holds the

belief that dissonance has much to do with inconsistency, and not as much

to do with self-threat or aversive consequences as Aronson and Cooper

suggested. He believes that Festinger began his theory with the right

concept, but points out that he never identified the why behind

inconsistent cognitions producing discomfort and motivating attitudinal or

 Sandberg 10

behavioral changes. Therefore, he concludes that cognitive dissonance

theory does not need to be rethought, but added onto. To satisfy this need,

Harmon-Jones proposes the Action-Based Model of Dissonance. This model

states that inconsistent cognitions cause people discomfort because

inconsistency interferes with the ability to take effective action. This model

assumes that cognitions guide actions. Therefore, when an individual holds

two relatively important cognitions that are inconsistent, the potential to act

in accord with them is undermined (11). By linking dissonance to action,

Harmon-Jones hopes to create a new line of research going forward that will

connect the already existing body of research on dissonance with other

research focused on action orientation, behavioral regulation, emotion

regulation, and the neural processes that underlie these important

psychological processes (13).

Cognitive Dissonance Theory as proposed by Festinger in 1956 has

been criticized, tested, changed, and added onto over the last fifty years.

Despite this, it still stands today as a strong objective theory, shining a light

on how people reconcile inconsistent attitudes and behaviors. This theory

teaches of the tension of dissonance that is experienced daily, and helps

individuals to make sense of the reasons behind their own behavior.

Cognitive Dissonance theory will surely continue to grow in the coming

years, as it remains an active part of social psychologists research today.

Although there have been many flaws and various outcomes that have come

from the experiments conducted to test Festingers original ideas, his theory
 Sandberg 11

still gives us much insight and appreciation for the daily, universal

experience that is cognitive dissonance.

Bibliography

Cooper, Joel, and Russell H. Fazio. "A New Look at Dissonance Theory."

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Advances in Experimental

Social Psychology Volume 17 (1984): 229-66. Web.

Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford UP,

1962. Print.

Griffin, Emory A. A First Look at Communication Theory. Boston: McGraw-Hill,

2006. Print.
 Sandberg 12

Harmon-Jones, E. "Cognitive Dissonance and Experienced Negative Affect:

Evidence That Dissonance Increases Experienced Negative Affect Even

in the Absence of Aversive Consequences." Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 26.12 (2000): 1490-501. Web.

Harmon-Jones, Eddie, and Cindy Harmon-Jones. "Cognitive Dissonance

Theory After 50 Years of Development." Zeitschrift Fr

Sozialpsychologie 38.1 (2007): 7-16. Web.

Thibodeau, R., and E. Aronson. "Taking a Closer Look: Reasserting the Role of

the Self-Concept in Dissonance Theory." Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin 18.5 (1992): 591-602. Web.