Cognitive dissonance was first investigated by Leon Festinger as a study of a cult which believed that the earth was going to be destroyed by a flood. The flood never came and Festinger followed what happened to its members some of whom had given up their homes and jobs in response to the prophecy. While fringe members accepted that they had been duped, committed members tended to re-interpret the evidence to show that they were right all along (the earth was not destroyed because of the faithfulness of the cult members). Festinger argued that some people would inevitably resolve dissonance by blindly believing whatever they wanted to believe.
More Deceitfulness Articles
All deception in the course of life is indeed nothing else but a lie reduced to practice, and falsehood passing from words into things
. Robert Southey
Men are always sincere. They change sincerities, that's all
. Tristan Bernard
When people gain an understanding of new information (cognition) it can create disharmony or discord (dissonance) between previously held attitudes, beliefs or behaviours. This disharmony creates irritation and produces a feeling of mental discomfort. To resolve it something has to give so we alter either our attitudes, beliefs or behaviours to the point where we are once again in balance, in other words, we create and enter a new reality. How we go about this is the point of the study of Cognitive Dissonance. The study does not claim that the things people do actually work just that this is typical behaviour.
Cognitive dissonance is ascribed to three causes:
- Forced Compliance Behaviour,
- Decision Making,
- Effort.
And it affects three areas of our personality:
- attitudes,
- beliefs,
- behaviours
Forced Compliance Behavior
When someone is forced to do (especially publicly) something they are inwardly opposed to, dissonance or conflict is created between their cognition (the awareness of their beliefs and attitudes) and their behaviour. The behaviour can't be changed, since it was already completed in the past, so to correct the imbalance they attempt to adjust their attitude to what they have done and their beliefs.
The experiment:
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a boring task would create cognitive dissonance through forced compliance behaviour.
In their laboratory experiment, they used 71 male students as participants to perform a series of boring tasks (such as turning pegs in a peg board for an hour). They were then paid either $1 or $20 to tell someone whom they were told was a waiting participant that the tasks were really interesting. The person who was waiting was actually working with Festinger and Carlsmith.
Almost all of the participants agreed. Afterwards the participants were asked to evaluate the boring experiment. The participants who were paid only $1 rated the tedious task as more fun and enjoyable than the participants who were paid $20 to lie.
The participants who were paid only $1 did not want to accept that they could be driven to discard their beliefs for something as trivial as $1 and it generated dissonance. They could not change what they had done so they attempted to adjust their attitudes and beliefs by saying that the experiment conformed to their evaluation. The fact that the appeal had come from someone in authority who was nice to them and gave them $1 played a major part in why they conceded. How the experiment is related by some commentators gives the impression that the $1 participants were approached on the basis that their compliance was a personal favour while in the other case it was simply bribery. On the other hand being paid $20 (a small fortune to a student at the time) was sufficient for them to accept that they had lied for the money. Since that was enough to justify their actions there was no dissonance.
Decision Making
In making choices we have to accept the loss of the good points of the choice that was rejected. You can’t eat your cake now and still have it for desert. People have several ways to reduce dissonance that is aroused by making a decision (Festinger, 1964). People find it very difficult to change behaviour or habits (e.g. smoking) or maybe the action is already past, so they resort to some mental shenanigans to preserve their self image at the expense of beliefs or attitudes. A common way to reduce dissonance is to increase the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and to decrease the attractiveness of the rejected alternative. This is referred to as "spreading apart the alternatives." Brehm (1956) was the first to investigate the relationship between dissonance and decision-making.
To test the following:
1. Choosing between two alternatives creates dissonance and a consequent pressure to reduce it. The dissonance is reduced by making the chosen alternative more desirable and the unchosen alternative less desirable after the choice than they were before it.
2. The magnitude of the dissonance and the consequent pressure to reduce it are greater themore closely the alternatives approach equal desirability.
3. Exposing a person to new relevant cognitive elements, at least some of which are consonant, facilitates the reduction of dissonance.
Steps in the procedure were:
(a) rate each of a variety of objects on desirability,
(b) choose between two of the objects rated, and
(c) rate the desirability of each object again.
Before the choice was made the subjects were told that they would be allowed to chose between two objects for their compensation. The two objects were actually chosen at random but a concocted explanation was presented to the participant. The variations in the pair offered for the choice were to be used to assess the expected degree of dissonance. The two objects were chosen to meet the following conditions:
- One was always an article that had been rated fairly high in desirability, i.e., at about 5,6, or 7 on the 8-point scale
- To create high dissonance (High Diss condition), the other object was always nearly as desirable as the first, i.e.,no more than 1 1/2 scale-points lower. For medium dissonance the alternative was always about 2 scale-points lower, and for low dissonance the alternative was always about 3 scale-points lower.
As predicted by Hypothesis 1, there was a significant reduction of dissonance in all but those in the Low-Dissonance condition. A reduction in dissonance would be identified by an increased range of scale points between the two items that were offered in the choice.
As expected from Hypothesis 2, the reduction of dissonance was greater in the High than in the Low Dissonance conditions supporting the prediction, that dissonance and consequent attempts to reduce it would be greater the more nearly the choice alternatives approached equality.
The third hypothesis was not established.
What can we take away from this? People can use this to brainwash us into doing something of which we do not approve, start small. Get us to do something similar in a very small way, downplaying it. Then let them us know what they have really done and we will change our values. We need to be very careful of people asking for small favours in areas where we do not particularly agree. We must stick to our principles, no matter how seemingly trivial the request is.
Effort
In Economics and business, sunk costs are excluded from future decisions because the cost will be the same regardless of the outcome. The sunk cost fallacy arises when decision-making takes into account sunk costs: money already spent.
It always seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required considerable effort to achieve but that is not always the best way to value future options. From a psychological perspective this is probably because dissonance would be caused if we spent a great effort to achieve something and then evaluated it negatively. Apparently, in order to avoid the dissonance some do try to convince themselves that they didn't really spend all that of effort, or that the effort was really enjoyable, or even that it wasn't really a lot of effort after all. That having been said, the more likely approach is that we find it easier to persuade ourselves that what we have achieved is worthwhile whether or not other people agree. Psychologist label this method of reducing dissonance 'effort justification.' In either case the reaction comes from dissonance. The classic study is the experiment by Aronson and Mills (1959).
[ELLIOT ARONSON and JUDSON MILLSTHE EFFECT OF SEVERITY OF INITIATION ON LIKINGFOR A GROUPSEMANTIC SCHOLAR - A free, AI-powered research tool for scientific literatureWEBsep 2020]
THE EFFECT OF SEVERITY OF INITIATION ON LIKINGFOR A GROUP
ELLIOT ARONSON
Stanford University
AND JUDSON MILLS
U. S. Army Leadership Human Research Unit, IhimRRO
The experiment
To test the hypothesis that 'individuals who undergo an unpleasant initiation to become members of a group increase their liking for the group; that is, they find the group more attractive than do persons who become members without going through a severe initiation'.
Female students volunteers were lead to believe that they were being screened to be participants in a discussion on the psychology of sex. To do so they needed to pass an embarrassment test since the experimenter needed to make sure the participants could talk about sex freely. If the students didn’t pass the embarrassment test then they could not be part of the discussion group. In fact they were being grouped for analysis of dissonance in an experiment designed to emulate an initiation ceremony. For the 'mild embarrassment' condition, participants read aloud to a male experimenter a list of sex-related words like 'virgin' and 'prostitute', that were not considered obscene and therefore not intended to cause embarrassment. In the 'severe embarrassment' condition, they read out a list of obscene words before reading aloud vivid descriptions of sexual activity from contemporary novels. In the control condition, they went straight into the main study without any reading requirement. They were all then compelled to endure a pre-recorded boring discussion about sex in lower animals which they thought was actually live. The discussion was deliberately made boring and the discussion group were as unlikable as possible. They were asked to rate how interesting they had found the discussion, and how interesting they had found the people involved in it.
After this was over, the students were asked whether they liked the group members that they’d heard speaking. Aronson and Mills found that those students who went through ‘screening’ ceremony were far more likely to decide that they liked the group members. This supports the objective.
The experiment was not arranged to show some of the more general conclusions that later experiments have attempted to show. In addition there are competing views on whether or not this behaviour is as a result of dissonance, but what appears to be certain is that the behaviour where people who suffer greater difficulty attach greater value is consistent.
Other experiments (Gerard and Mathewson - 1966) have sought to replicate Aronson and Mills’ experiment to remove scholarly objections. There is still some degree of scepticism and contradiction with other studies as to what causes this behaviour but the behaviour itself is unmistakable.
These are experiments in cognitive dissonance. According to the theory dissonance (or distress) is created when newly acquired knowledge (cognition) conflicts with our values. According to the theory we are driven to eliminate the distress and typically do so by re-defining reality to conform with our self image.
In the Festinger experiment your friend has no need of these mental shenanigans. She was simply paid $20 (a small fortune) to lie. The task was boring no matter what the experimenter says.
The concept of dissonance is closely related to the scriptural character element of conscience. The book of Romans talks about how this progression can destroy Christians. It is encapsulated in the 25th verse of Chapter 1.
Romans 1:25 [KJV] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
And Paul's first letter to the Corinthians shows us that it is a spiritual battle that can ransack our priorities.
2 Corinthians 11:14-16 (KJV) And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. 15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works. 16 I say again, Let no man think me a fool; if otherwise, yet as a fool receive me, that I may boast myself a little.
Furthermore, James warns us about not coming to terms with our true selves.
James 3:14 (KJV) But if ye have bitter envying and strife in your hearts, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
We alter the truth according to what we want to believe about ourselves and our associations but God never deviates from the truth and neither should we.
Acts 10:34 (KJV) Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
Going back to the book of Romans, where it is dealt with in greater detail, Paul says that it seems to be some kind of law that drives us to this behaviour.
Romans 7:14-25 KJV For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. 15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. 16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. 17 Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 18 For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not. 19 For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do. 20 Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. 21 I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me. 22 For I delight in the law of God after the inward man: 23 But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. 24 O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? 25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.
Paul had earlier pointed out the devastating progression that can gradually take hold of any one of us.
Romans 1:18-32 KJV For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29 Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30 Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
What is clear from the Bible is that there is a powerful force in our nature that gradually leads us to reject the truth and form our own reality. Even the writer knew that he was subject to it. In extreme cases people could develop the most disgusting character and be comfortable with it. The only thing that protects a Christian is the faith that God's word is true.
Proverbs 30:5 [KJV] Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.
John 17:17 [KJV] Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
We cheat ourselves in order to enjoy a quiet conscience, without possessing virtue.
Madame de Lambert, Marquise de Saint-Bris (1647 – 12 July 1733)
The above presentations lead me to a horrifying conclusion: We can be manipulated into deceiving ourselves. The very noble emotions that we pride ourselves in (e.g. repaying kindness to those who have been kind, or respect for age and authority) can be used against us. We cannot play with Satan. We cannot let our emotions get the better of us.
Leviticus 19:15 (KJV) Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.
1 Kings 13:16-19 (KJV) And he said, I may not return with thee, nor go in with thee: neither will I eat bread nor drink water with thee in this place: 17 For it was said to me by the word of the LORD, Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest. 18 He said unto him, I am a prophet also as thou art; and an angel spake unto me by the word of the LORD, saying, Bring him back with thee into thine house, that he may eat bread and drink water. But he lied unto him. 19 So he went back with him, and did eat bread in his house, and drank water.
This story actually begins in 1kings 12:31 where the prophet gave a warning to Jeroboam and ends in 1kings 14:32.
No matter what anybody says or how they twist the facts we must be able to recognise right and wrong and accept the truth.
Romans 2:15 [KJV] Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another;)
I Timothy 4:1-2 KJV Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
On tool that could help is to actually write out the facts for and against. Then critically examine each point for its validity. People are typically to lazy to do it but it clarifies whether our decisions are based on facts or emotion.
