The research behind Cognitive Dissonance Theory
We tend to think of beliefs as things that guide behavior. You believe exercise is important, so you exercise. You think a purchase is worth the money, so you buy it. You decide someone is a good partner, so you stay in the relationship.
But the relationship can also work in the opposite direction. Sometimes we do something first and then adjust the way we think about it afterwards.
This was one of the ideas psychologist Leon Festinger explored through Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Festinger proposed that inconsistencies between our beliefs, attitudes and behavior can create psychological discomfort. Because that inconsistency is uncomfortable, we are motivated to reduce it.
Sometimes we do that by changing what we do. Sometimes we change what we believe. And sometimes we find a new explanation that allows the two to coexist.
THE EXPERIMENT
One of the best-known demonstrations of cognitive dissonance came from a 1959 experiment conducted by Festinger and psychologist James Carlsmith at Stanford University.
Participants were asked to complete a series of deliberately monotonous tasks. For one task, they repeatedly placed spools onto a tray, emptied it and started again. For another, they turned dozens of pegs a quarter turn over and over. The activities lasted for about an hour and were intentionally designed to be boring.
At the end, the experimenter told participants that the study normally involved another person telling the next participant that the tasks were interesting and enjoyable. That person supposedly had not shown up, so the participant was asked to take their place.
In other words, the researchers asked participants who had just spent an hour doing something extremely dull to convince someone else that it had actually been enjoyable.
Some participants were offered $1 to do this. Others were offered $20, a substantial amount of money in 1959.
Afterwards, participants were interviewed by someone who appeared to be unaffiliated with the experiment and asked what they really thought of the tasks.
The obvious prediction might be that the people paid $20 would evaluate the experience more positively. They had received the larger reward.
Instead, participants paid only $1 subsequently rated the tasks more positively than participants who had been paid $20.
THE FINDING
Festinger and Carlsmith argued that the difference could be explained by the amount of external justification participants had for what they had done.
The people paid $20 had a straightforward explanation for telling another person that the experiment was enjoyable. They had been paid well to say it. Their private belief could remain intact: the task was boring, but I said it was interesting because I received $20.
The participants paid $1 had a less convincing external explanation.
They knew the task had been boring. They also knew they had just told someone that it was interesting. But they had received very little money for doing so.
That created a greater inconsistency between their attitude and their behavior.
According to Cognitive Dissonance Theory, one way to reduce that discomfort was to modify the attitude itself. Perhaps the task had not been quite as boring as they originally thought. Perhaps parts of it were somewhat interesting after all.
The behavior had already happened and couldn't be changed. Changing the interpretation of the experience offered another way to make the pieces fit together.
This became known as the insufficient justification effect: under certain conditions, having less external justification for behavior can produce more internal attitude change.
THE THEORY
Festinger introduced Cognitive Dissonance Theory in 1957. At its core is a relatively simple idea: people are uncomfortable with certain inconsistencies among their beliefs, knowledge, attitudes and behavior and are motivated to reduce those inconsistencies.
Imagine that you think of yourself as financially responsible but repeatedly spend more than you intended. You now have two pieces of information that do not fit comfortably together: I am responsible with money and I keep making purchases I cannot really afford.
There are several ways to resolve the contradiction.
You could change the behavior by reducing your spending. You could change the belief and acknowledge that perhaps you aren't currently managing money as responsibly as you thought. Or you could introduce additional explanations that make the behavior easier to reconcile with your existing self-image: the purchase was unusually important, you deserved it after a difficult month or you will make up for the spending later.
Any of these can reduce the inconsistency.
This is what makes cognitive dissonance particularly interesting. The theory doesn't simply predict that people will correct inconsistent behavior. Sometimes changing our explanation is psychologically easier than changing what we are doing.
NOT THE SAME THING
Cognitive dissonance is not hypocrisy
Someone can behave inconsistently without consciously attempting to deceive anyone.
You can sincerely believe that health is one of your highest priorities while repeatedly sleeping too little. You can genuinely value close relationships while continually allowing work to consume the time you intended to spend with people you care about. You can believe strongly in saving money while making purchases that work against that goal.
The inconsistency is real even if both the belief and the intention are sincere.
Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological tension created by incompatible cognitions and the processes people may use to reduce that tension. It does not require someone to knowingly pretend to believe something they don't.
It also doesn't mean that every justification we make is a rationalization. Sometimes circumstances genuinely change. New information can legitimately alter a belief and there are often good reasons why behavior doesn't perfectly reflect a stated value.
The useful question is whether the explanation helps you understand what happened or primarily helps the contradiction feel less uncomfortable.
WHY IT MATTERS
Cognitive dissonance becomes particularly interesting when decisions are difficult to reverse.
Imagine spending a large amount of money on something and discovering that it isn't quite as good as you expected. Admitting that can be uncomfortable because it introduces another thought: perhaps I made a bad decision.
One way to reduce that discomfort is to focus more heavily on the positive features of what you chose.
The same process can occur with decisions that require substantial time or effort. The more you have invested in a career, relationship, belief or project, the more psychologically consequential it can become to acknowledge evidence that doesn't fit your existing view of it.
This does not mean people are incapable of changing their minds. It helps explain why changing a mind can sometimes require more than presenting new information. Accepting the information may also require accepting something uncomfortable about a previous decision, belief or behavior.
Dissonance can also influence how we interpret our own effort. If you have worked extremely hard to gain access to something, there can be pressure to believe the outcome was worth the effort. Otherwise you are left with an uncomfortable possibility: I went through all of that for something I don't actually value very much.
Researchers have studied versions of this phenomenon as effort justification, another area closely associated with dissonance theory. Under certain conditions, people may evaluate an outcome more positively when obtaining it required substantial effort.
This is one reason our current preferences cannot always be separated neatly from our previous choices. The things we have sacrificed for, publicly defended, spent money on and invested years in can become psychologically connected to the way we understand ourselves.
TRY THIS
Think of something in your life that you find yourself defending frequently. It could be a purchase, a habit, a relationship, a career decision, a way you spend your time or simply an opinion you have held for a long time.
Instead of immediately asking whether the decision was right or wrong, pay attention to the explanations you use when evidence challenges it.
Then imagine, briefly, that you had made the opposite choice.
If you hadn't bought it, would you still think it was worth the price? If you hadn't already spent three years pursuing the goal, would you choose it today? If you had never publicly stated your opinion, would the new information feel easier to consider?
None of those questions proves that your current position is wrong. Past effort and experience can provide genuinely valuable information.
The purpose is to temporarily remove some of the psychological investment surrounding the decision so you can look at it from another angle.
Our beliefs influence our choices. But once a choice has been made, the influence can begin running in both directions. Understanding cognitive dissonance gives us a way to notice when we are learning from our decisions and when we may be adjusting the story so the decision becomes easier to live with.
References
Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58(2), 203-210.