Talk:Cognitive dissonance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Pre-decisional dissonance might be analogous to what Freud called "compensation." When a test showed that subjects had latent sexist attitudes, they later awarded a female a larger reward than a male in what they were told was a different study. Researchers hypothesized that the larger reward reduced dissonance by attempting to show that they were not sexist in the later decision, not considering the possibility that the subjects were trying to influence the attitudes of the testers instead of performing mysterious internal mental gymnastics to relieve hypothetical stress." -- This whole paragraph should be rewritten to be made clearer. As it is currently, I do not understand what this paragraph says.

gender roles not properly fixed in the last edit! :-)

However, after the purchase, the individual may be exposed to another cognition that informs her that there is a better washing machine out on the market (for example, through an advertisement). This then leads to an imbalance between her cognitions and a psychological state which needs to seek consonance between the two cognitions.

I'm not going to fix that in the article since english is not my primary language ... I could make a mess

---

"However, there are even more ways of reducing the state of dissonance. One example is through selecting information after the purchase. It might be that a person would purposefully avoid other washing machine advertisements knowing that the decision had been made and finding out about other products could lead to some discomfort."

Is this really a case of reducing cognitive dissonance? It sounds to me like a way to *avoid* the cognitive dissonance occurring in the first place, rather than a way to reduce it. But I have no psychological knowledge, so I'm not going to edit the article. -- S

If the person knows to avoid the advertisements, then they must be feeling at least some dissonance already. This is the definition of cognitive dissonance as a "negative drive state". --Taak 16:41, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Reply to S:

Depending on how one tends to try to resolve dissonance, one could also continue to view advertisements in an effort to find confirmatory information - e.g. that another brand doesn't have as good a warranty, would not have matched the dryer, whatever. This would support their orginal decision and reduce dissonance. However, avoiding disconfirming information by avoiding advertisments is also a way to reduce dissonance, so it really works both ways.

Contents 1 MS Windows and Linux purchasing examples 2 agreed 3 Washing machine example 4 why doesn't the article say how it all started? 5 What should link to this article 6 Junky, jargon-filled overwritten article. 7 Definition Problems 8 This needs updating 9 Information for future updates 10 Further References Needed 11 free minds 12 Mands: Technical term, so should we revert? 13 Article title? 14 Examples 15 absolute crap

[edit] MS Windows and Linux purchasing examples

I've removed the MS Windows and Linux example [see here], as I don't think this, as it was written, was an example of cognitive dissonance. If instead, the company or person insisted on continueing to use MS Windows, despite Linux being proven to be better, then it would be Cognitive dissonance, but this isn't how the example was currently described. Am I right or am I wrong here? --Rebroad 18:59, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you say seems more like an opinion or taste held for the continuity of ones thinking or worldview; embracing a certain 'selective retention'. It, rather than being an example of cognitive dissonance, is an expession of a portion of their particular cognitive cohesiveness. Cognitive dissonance, I'd venture to guess psychologically, is what becomes resolved before it is expressed in terms of an end thought process or choice resolution. If any degree of cognitive dissonance is manifest it would be in other ways than ones conscious chosen actions. Cognitive dissonance is what doesn't fit into a complete logical system around which one puts value. The focus of value itself is subjective and there can be dissonance only in relation between any of those such 'centers'. The relation between different "centers" of value and how they interact are the source of the dissonance, not the placement of value as focus points themselves, even if it seems the choice of a particular two values is the cause. Like ripples in a pond going out in every direction and diminishing ripples of another source; it really only changes the direction of the ripples ultimately. Not the source. Nagelfar 06:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I have used an example about 'cigarette smoking' in a research article about cognitive dissonance (well, actually the article was about the psychological effects of a "learning companion" computer system making deliberate mistakes in front of the user). The cigarette example goes as follows. Let's say Albert is a smoker. However, Albert is also concerned by his health and longevity. When he learns that cigarette can be dangerous for his health, he feels a psychological discomfort because this new piece of information causes two of his mental schemas to clash ("the habit of smoking" and "the belief in good health" are made to clash because of the new information, "smoking can cause cancer"). In order to reduce the dissonance, Albert can use various mental, emotive and behavioral "tools". He can quit smoking (behavioral change); he can convince himself that he is already old so that a cancer wouldn't shorten his lifespan by much (change in self-perception & reducing the emotive charge); he can search new information that would negate the "smoking can cause cancer" affirmation (new information); he can convince himself that "smoking can cause cancer in other people only" (denial & distanciation); and so on. The said paper has been published in IJCAI proceedings; the reference is listed on my user page. Hugo Dufort 07:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] agreed

I agree that Linux/MS products isn't a good example and would not necessarily appear in a text book.

[edit] Washing machine example

This was repeated twice in the text in different sections. I've deleted one of them, but I can't tell whether I deleted the right one. Thought I should let you know in case I got the wrong one. Best, Slim 06:31, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

the washing machine isn't repeated, it's expanded upon.

The first washing machine example isn't as clear as the second.

[edit] why doesn't the article say how it all started?

It all started with Leon Festinger's observations of an UFO cult in which he notices

[edit] What should link to this article

As part of a wide sweep of attacks upon articles, the Holonomic brain theory link has been removed from this article. This theory posits the notion of brain wave interference patterns as fundamental to the process of cognition. Over the course of decades, this theory has shown itself to be consistently reliable as a predictor of cognitive functionality. In contrast, mainstream medical establishment models have proven to have serious weaknesses. Ombudsman 17:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Whose research is it that determined that "has shown itself to be consistently reliable as a predictor of cognitive functionality" and "in contrast, mainstream medical establishment models have proven to have serious weaknesses"? If it's reliable academic research, it's funny that it was never added to either the article or to the recent VfD on the article. If it's original research -- well, you know about original research. You should really be careful not to make offensive accusations of bad faith when there are much simpler explanations. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:28, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Junky, jargon-filled overwritten article.

This is a bad article. It uses words in the phrase while attempting to define the phrase. And on top of that, a longer word (cognition) when a much shorter and simpler word will do (idea).

It has a general pompous, tone, uses lots of unnecessary jargon and is vaguely impenetrable to people just looking for a simple explanation of the phrase.

Bad. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.123.152.86 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC).

"The introduction of new and disonant cognition that is disonant" What? KAM 11:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition Problems

After reading this article one of the main problems is the definition of cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance isn't only between two different cognitions, but also between cognition and behaviour. An example could be that you are frugle when spending your money, but you want a book you don't need. You will change your attitude to the book to justify why you need it. Hence, we usually try to reduce ths dissonance by changing our behaviour or our attitude, or by somehow explaining away the inconsistency or reducing its importance (Aronson, 1973, 1976; Cooper & Fazio, 1984; Ferstinger 1957)

---

from matt: the very first sentence of the article includes behavior as an example of a cognition. while it could be worded better or more correctly, it is not incomplete.

---

Cognitive dissonance can involve any relationship between any "cognitions" in a "cognitive schema". This is a complex issue because the scope is not very well defined. However, it is certain that cognitive dissonance involves an emotive charge; without emotion, the detection of a dissonance in our thoughts would merely cause an analytical rejection of one or more cognitions (just like a mismatched piece of puzzle can be thrown out of the puzzle box without much of a second thought). Things are more complex in reality. Clashes can be observed between behaviors, beliefs, actions, self-perception, other people's perception, knowledge, moral system, observation -- these cause an emotional response, and in order to reduce the cognitive dissonance (and the emotional response), you must take action (either mentally or physically). For instance, if you believe that the Earth is flat (belief) and somebody commands you to sail straight across the ocean (coercion), you're in for a big fear; if you do it anyway (action), you'll experience cognitive dissonance between your belief (the Earth is flat and you might fall down) and your action (sailing straight to the horizon). One interesting situation involves a Greek philosoph observing a ship that disappears at the horizon (observation): the sail disappears last. Now, only a round Earth would explain this observation -- if the philosoph was taught that the Earth is flat (belief or knowledge), he is now experiencing a cognitive dissonance. He's puzzled; maybe he can even come to doubt his religious system (or moral system). The emotive charge is then intense. Hugo Dufort

[edit] This needs updating

I would be inclined to agree that this is not one of Wikipedia's best articles, as it is very incomplete and out of date. Nothing is said on how Aronson reformulated cognitive dissonance to bring in references to the self-concept, or of Tedeschi's more recent formulations involving public self-presentation. Much more could have been said on how Bem's self-perception theory has been a rival to cognitive dissonance theory, and how some have claimed that the experimental study of arousal may help us to choose between Bem and Festinger. A better structure would be to talk about the different experimental methods that have been used to study dissonance, not just forced compliance studies such as the Festinger and Carlsmith study, but also methods such as studies of post-decisional dissonance, studied by Jack Brehm, or studies of how people may seek information consistent with their own views. Normally, Wikipedia is to be applauded for being very up to date, especially with articles relating to current affairs, but this particular article is very dated. If time permits, I may extend and up-date this article (I have just amended the articles on attitudes, which, as some one who has taught social cognition for many years, I felt also needed a rewrite). ACEO 19:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC) I have now give a rewrite, and have replaced the term "subjects" with the more up-to-date "participants" (current protocol for writing practical reports in Psychology now favours this). I have not put in references, though, and if any one has the references for the papers of Aronson or Tedeschi, I would hope that they can be added. ACEO 18:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Information for future updates

I am just about finished reading Festinger's "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" (Stanford, 1962 edition) and I don't feel like this page accurately explains the original theory. Some points that should be mentioned in a future update of the article:

1) Cognitions are "dissonant" if the obverse of one follows from other. Thus, neglecting to bring an umbrella is dissonant with the knowledge that it is likely to rain.

2) The magnitude of dissonance is related to the importance of the dissonant elements and the proportion of dissonant elements to cognitive elements.

3) The maximum possible amount of dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant element. In other words, dissonance will increase until its magnitude surpasses the resistance of the least resistant dissonant cognition, at which point that cognition will change and dissonance will be reduced below the limit. For example, it is likely that racist beliefs are more resistant to change than one's opinion of a politician's performance, and so a racist who has a high amount of dissonance concerning a very popular Black politician is more likely to decide that the politician is not actually good at his job, rather than deciding that Black people actually make good politicians.

4) Dissonance can be reduced by either eliminating or changing dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. So, someone who feels dissonance about buying a new car can reduce that dissonance by concluding that other types of cars are in fact inferior, or that the chosen type of car actually has many features that make it superior.

5) It is expected that people who feel dissonance will seek out information that will reduce their dissonance and avoid information that will increase it. In situations of "buyers' remorse," people will do this after the purchase has been made. So, the hypotheical car buyer should avoid information praising the non-chosen types of cars, and seek information that lauds the type that was chosen. When people involuntarily encounter information that would increase dissonance, they will find ways to discount it, such as ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

I believe these points outline the core of Festinger's original dissonance theory. While some of this information is currently presented in the article, the information is not complete or cohesive. I recommend that the article have one section concerning the "original" theory of dissonance that includes the material above. Further sections could then explicate current trends in dissonance theory, alternatives to dissonance theory, etc. While I will add some of the above information, I will leave major revision to others who are more knowledgeable about those latter topics (current trends and alternatives) than I. 4 May 2006 (UTC)NB

[edit] Further References Needed

I applaud the last comment, which, if anything, explains the original theory more clearly and more accurately than does the article! I have now added references for Bem (1965), Bem (1967), Brehm (1956), Aronson (1969) and Tedeschi et al. (1971). However, I believe that both James Tedeschi and Barry Schlenker published papers championing the view that dissonance resolution is to preserve one's public self-image after 1980, and I shall be grateful to any one who has these more up-to-date references if he or she could add them. Also, various studies in the 1970s (I think that Pallak and Pitman were two of the authors of the paper published about 1971) measured arousal to try to choose between Festinger and Bem. If any one could add references to these articles, again that would be good. Finally, does any one have the references for the counter-attitudinal essay-writing studies? I think that Rosenberg did one (they date back as far as the 1960s, but do indicate that empirical studies of induced compliance did not end with the Festinger and Carlsmith study). ACEO 15:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] free minds

Not only is the web site questionable some even go so far as to view it as a hate site. Regardless, it is designed against a specific religion and is not appropriate for an encyclopedia, thus it does not meet Wikepedia standards. Further it is distasteful. The page even goes as far as saying that "Festinger fails to discuss the International Bible Students (later known as Jehovah's Witnesses)" Yet the whole web page is against Witnesses. This is not a appropriate link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links there you will find the following 4 points. 1)Is it proper (useful, tasteful, etc.)? 2)Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site 3)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. 4)Sites that contain neutral and accurate material We do not need to drag this further do we? Johanneum 20:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Johanneum, the fact that you do not like what the paper says about your religion does not make it "distasteful", "hateful", or anything else that would justify your desire to hide it from view. Please leave it alone. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

My religion nor your religion is at issue. The issue is whether it is appropriate to Wikipedia standards and whether it truly fits in. As mention above this is a web page aimed at targeting a specific religion. They and not Festinger make the application to this religion. Regardless the following is from freeminds homepage, "This is a religion of specific psychiatric tastes. It requires a peculiar sort of neurotic scheme in the personality of those who will become a part of it and a defender of its insanity in the face of constant reproofs of its genuine claims to supernatural authenticity." "psychiatric, neurotic, insanity" this is clearly distasteful and perhaps hateful. Your cooperation is appreciated. The link should be seen for what it is. To support Randy's agenda. Johanneum 02:51, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This is the article on cognitive dissonance. The link is to a well-referenced scholarly paper on cognitive dissonance. Do the math. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I saw the request for arbiration mediation and stopped by. I do not think the linked article is hate speech. The material is interesting and, like the Great Disappointment, appears to be on topic. That some page says negative (or positive) things about a religion is not grounds to not link. The header and the text both make clear that the author may have a religious motivation, so I don't think the POV is hidden. On the other hand, I'm sure why the link was added. Antaeus, could you explain why you believe this link belongs in the article? Thanks, --William Pietri 00:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it belongs in the article because it's a well-written article that directly addresses the article subject, cognitive dissonance, exploring its manifestation in a particular context. Anyone who came to our article trying to understand the topic of cognitive dissonance would learn more about it by following the link in question and seeing how the concept is applied. Not everyone will agree with it, but it was never a requirement of external links that everyone would do so. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems plauisble to me. Johanneum, how does that strike you? --William Pietri 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out, in passing, that if William hadn't mentioned seeing the request for mediation, I would never have known that Johanneum had submitted the matter for mediation. I can't find anything which specifically states "if you're submitting a matter to mediation, alert the other parties involved as a matter of courtesy," but perhaps I'm not alone in thinking it should go without saying. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I was a little surprised there was nothing on the talk page. It would seem the polite thing to do. --William Pietri 02:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you William Pietri. Perhaps more talk could have been done but it was not getting any where. I did not appreciate his sarcastic tone e.g.. "do the math" although his last editions above were not. In addition, the case was not set for official "mediation" but for outside help. One of my last posts here stated, "we need some help". Regardless, I appolizie if I over stepped any bound.  :-) On the other hand, It certainly would have been appreciated if Antaeus would have explained the above sooner. However, there was no reasoning on the matter. Besides, my real issue was the web page and not necessarily the specific article. The Web page seems very questionable and thus it seems by extension their article may be questionable. Johanneum 11:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC) One other thing, Leon Festinger dealt with a Wisconsin-based flying saucer "cult" during the 1950's. He did not say anything about Jehovah's Witnesses. It is Randy (freeminds) who will apply anything negative toward the Witnesses. Thus the connection between his site and this page under question deals with the definition of "cult". This is highly controversial and form a NPOV "religion", "group" or even possibly "sect" is preferable. If it is understood that the inclusion of this site is due to prophecy then please consult Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians where the same can be applied to many religions including JW’s. Also if we keep this link, should we added other sites which are against specific religions and also pertaining to predictions? Johanneum 11:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Let me say, first of all, that I do not know (or care, really) who "Randy" even is. Nor do I really think the nature of the "freeminds" site in general is really all that relevant, not when we are linking directly to a document which meets none of the criteria which Johanneum assure us apply to a site as a whole. That's the fallacy of division, asserting that this must be a bad page to link to if the site as a whole is. As for the rest of Johanneum's assertions, I say yes. Johanneum might have believed he was making a POINT by adding Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians to the "See also" section but as far as I'm concerned, that was a change that improved the article; it's clearly relevant to the subject and anyone looking to research cognitive dissonance can now follow the link to find promising places to research. Johanneum acts as if he's calling my bluff by suggesting that we should link to other papers, about cognitive dissonance among followers of other religions (actually, he just said "other sites which are against specific religions and also pertaining to predictions" but let's give him the benefit of the doubt.) What he doesn't realize is, there's no bluff. If someone locates a paper of similar quality which addresses cognitive dissonance among a different population, religious or otherwise, then let's link to it and the article will be better for it. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the improvement in tone from both sides. Thanks for that. I understand your concern about the Freeminds site, but the link is only to the article. I agree the term "cult" is provocative, and were somebody using in Wikipedia as a description of the Jehovah's Witnesses, I'd certainly object. But this is an external link where the POV seems obvious to me, and so I trust our readers to treat it with the appropriate sketpicism. The addition of the Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians bit seems fine to me, although I worry that some Christians would see it as singling them out. Generally, I think we should have a variety of external links that allow people to better understand the page topic. Except where length interferes with readability, the more the merrier. I wish we could include a link to James Thurber's story "The Day the Dam Broke", as it's a great (and funny) example of the phenomenon. --William Pietri 17:09, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I posted this on the mediation page; I suppose I should have posted it here, after volunteering to mediate.

IMJ it's not enough, to express the Wikipedia non-bias policy, just to say that we should state facts and not opinions. When asserting a fact about an opinion, it is important also to assert facts about competing opinions, and to do so without implying that any one of the opinions is correct. Otherwise we end up just looking for sources that agree with us, and there are bound to be some. Our grandmothers, if no one else. :)

Linking to an opinion piece doesn't really seem appropriate, unless it's one of the parties involved (like linking to MoveOn.org in an article about Democrat activism in the USA). Now, you could argue that this link is not to an opinion piece but to original research, but Wikipedia isn't for original research, either.

This might be a good way of sidestepping the controversy: it seems to me that this link isn't exactly about cognitive dissonance, but more about Unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians, which is already linked to from the Cognitive Dissonance page. Moving it there would be my suggestion.

(Putting unfulfilled historical predictions by Christians under Cognitive dissonance is also troubling, since it assumes that such unfulfilled historical predictions cause cognitive dissonance -- but that wasn't the issue at hand.)

--Hooponopono 15:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Hooponopono, no offense, but ... mediation is a tricky business. It requires not only empathy and fairness -- which I am sure you have -- but a very good understanding, which only comes through experience, of what the rules are and their correct application. Which I am not sure you have, after just twenty-four edits. The fact that you are trying to apply WP:NPOV to determine what is acceptable for external links, rather than Wikipedia:External links which is the policy designed to answer that question, makes me really think you need to wait and build up more experience before volunteering for mediation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

A brief opinion from a new user: the link is a poor choice; it barely incorporates cognitive dissonance into the analysis of Witnesses' beliefs. It is certainly not "a well-referenced scholarly paper on cognitive dissonance." Indeed, its conclusion seems to very clearly express what it really is: a thinly veiled attack against certain religious believers ("When the dissolution of the Watchtower movement comes, as it inevitably will, it will more likely be due to dissension from within than from the disconfirmation of prophecy. Until that day, let us hope and pray that the eyes of many Witnesses will be opened up to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ and come to Him.") If this had been submitted as a paper on cognitive dissonance in my class, it would receive an F for being so decidedly off-topic. Michaelo 17:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mands: Technical term, so should we revert?

I see that some one has changed my use of the word "mand" to "demand". This was not a typing error - the word "mand" is a technical term in behaviourism,applied to behaviourist theories of language, to signify vocal utterances that are either commands or demands as opposed to statements. Do readers of Wikipedia propose that we go back to the original term? ACEO 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If the technical term is appropriate and necessary here, you should append an explanatory phrase so that people know what's going on. Alternatively, if you think "demand" doesn't distort the meaning too much, you could just leave it as is. As much as possible, I think articles should be written for a general audience. --William Pietri 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Since Wikipedia's primary purpose in my view should be educational, I have now used the original term again, but added an explanatory note to explain what "mand" means. I have also extended the section on qualifications to the basic theory. I take your point, however, that usage of technical terms in Wikipedia should be accompanied by explanatory notes to ease comprehension. ACEO 18:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article title?

Is this an article on Cognitive dissonance or an article on Leon Festinger theories. If the latter, I would suggest merging onto Leon Festinger, or renaming it A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance to discuss the book. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What on Earth could have possibly given you the mistaken notion that cognitive dissonance began and ended with Festinger? -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

This article is complicated, especially for someone looking for a quick definition. CD is something that can rarely be understood without an example, a simple example should be provided near the beginning of the article so the casual observer doesn't have to slog through the psychological terminology. eg:

• John sees a photograph of a starving child in Africa and says, "People should be doing more to help starving children overseas." Jane replies, "Do you help starving children overseas?". Let us assume John doesn't. This creates cognitive dissonance, because of the difference between John's attitude and his behaviour. This is an uncomfortable feeling, and John will try to reduce it by modifying either his behaviour (eg. by sponsoring a child) or modifying his attitude (eg. by rationalization - "There will always be people starving around the world, there isn't much point in trying to help.").

This is a little crude, but it would simplify matters for the layman who doesn't have any psychological training. This could be linked to self perception theory.Dallas 17:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] absolute crap

for various reasons, this portion is

"Unknown defects: If Luke's dissonance is amplified often enough, e.g. by new, authoritative reviews of his blender, reviews which rate his blender poorly. Or, if his experience using his friends' blenders has Luke finding his machine wanting, Luke begins to be overwhelmed by his blender's dissonant-side at which point he starts to second-guess his choice. (buyer's remorse.)

Known defects: Luke's previously unavailable first choice had caused him to "settle" for a lesser choice, for a "placeholder", if you will. Then if his first choice becomes available, Luke will experience an instant increase in the second choice blender's hitherto repressed dissonance." 24.13.192.86 06:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you care to make a suggestion about how to fix it? Or to describe what you see as the problem? Just declaring a section "absolute crap" doesn't do much to make it likely the section will get fixed. Thanks, William Pietri 19:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)