Sometimes, know what to do can be hard.
Especially when information comes to light which does not support, or even contradicts, what you previously thought you knew.
In situations like this, many people become uncomfortable, and may even begin putting up mental comfort barriers.
Or they may even begin finding reasons or information to ignore the new information, rationalise or justify their old beliefs, or even
And much of it can be traced back to a concept called cognitive dissonance.
What is cognitive dissonance?
Have you ever felt uncomfortable, anxious or confused when you needed to think about two or more things which contradict each other, and then being unsure of what is actually “correct” or the “right thing to do next“?
That is your brain actively trying to resolve conflict within itself, the dissonance (difference and conflict) between two or more ideas / thoughts, and especially when one thought conflicts with what you actively want to do or think you should do next.
Cognitive Dissonance is described as the mental disturbance people feel when they realize their cognitions (thoughts) and actions are inconsistent or contradictory. This may ultimately result in some change in their cognitions or actions to cause greater alignment between them so as to reduce this dissonance.
Simply said: People do not like the psychological feeling of having to hold conflicting thoughts, and want to do things to reduce the apparent conflict between them.
Some examples of cognitive dissonance which may cause people stress, and how they might react to reduce this dissonance:
- Cheating: A person may like the feeling or results of cheating (e.g. on a spouse or in a game), but feel bad that they know what they did was wrong. They may try to reduce their dissonance is by telling themselves that other people also do it, or that as long as nobody finds out, they will not feel harmed.
- Dieting: An individual may value health and weight management but finds themselves eating a high-calorie dessert. To reduce dissonance, they might justify the behaviour by planning additional exercise or deeming the indulgence a small exception
- Purchasing Decisions: Someone might prefer the economy of one car model but be drawn to the design of another. Post-purchase, they may emphasise the chosen car’s positive attributes to reduce dissonance
- Ethical Consumption: A person might support ethical and sustainable products but purchase cheaper, less ethical alternatives due to budget constraints. To mitigate the conflict, they might donate to charity or justify their choice by citing the limited impact of a single purchase
- Eating meat and animal welfare: Someone may know that farmed animals are treated badly, yet still order and eat meat at restaurants where they do not know where it comes from. To mitigate this, they may tell themselves that when they buy meat themselves, they choose organic meat
- Smoking: A person may know that smoking is bad for them (and may kill them), but continue smoking anyway. They may mitigate this feeling by telling themselves that it is their choice what they do with their body, or that they plan to quit soon
- Supporting people who do bad things: Someone may be a fan of or a supporter of famous politicians, celebrities and artists who have previously done illegal or questionable things, such as assault, corruption, lying, sexual misconduct or things which disagree with the supporter’s morals. The person may still want to continue supporting this person or enjoying the artistic output, and may try to ignore these actions or say they were not such a big deal
- Rejecting innovation and new ideas in projects: Company leaders may claim they support innovation in their organisations, but consistently reject new project ideas that threaten the status quo or which are too creative. They may justify this to themselves by saying that they need to keep the current business operating smoothly and not do things which risk wasting money or resources
- Seeing data and information which disproves what you believe: An individual may find themselves exposed to information that contradicts their existing beliefs. For example, someone who is against vaccinations may accidentally come across scientific articles highlighting their safety and efficacy. To reduce the resulting dissonance, they may question the validity of the research or seek out sources that support their initial views
Where did the concept of cognitive dissonance originate?
The theory comes from work by Leon Festinger and brought to the public in his 1957 book: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
In it, Festinger outlined how he noticed how two previous events showed people acting irrationally. In 1934, a powerful magnitude 8.1 earthquake hit India and Nepal, killing more than 12,000 people. However, after the earthquake, hundreds of miles away in areas not affected by it, rumours rapidly began to spread about the earthquake returning, or that the water in the Ganges river would disappear. Strangely, these rumours were spreading amongst people who did not see any tragedy or destruction themselves. It was believed that people were experiencing such fear of the unknown that they were inventing explanations to justify the fear they were feeling. If it were true that something bad were about to happen, then their fear would be justified.
In another event, Festinger looked at a Doomsday cult led by Dorothy Martin.T he cult members believed the world would end in a flood on December 21, 1954, and they would be rescued by extraterrestrial aliens. They demonstrated strong commitment by quitting jobs, giving away possessions, and leaving schools and spouses. However, the world did not end in 1954, leaving the members and their leader proven wrong. However, instead of giving up their beliefs, the previously publicity-shunning members immediately sought media attention, contacted newspapers, and started actively seeking new believers. Many claimed that their previously held beliefs were the reason they were spared from the destruction, trying to rationalise what had happened. Festinger believed this proved how the members were struggling to let go of the beliefs they held so strongly, even though they were disproven, and were therefore taking action to justify continuing their beliefs.
Festinger wanted to then study and prove his theory in a laboratory. But instead of putting people in danger, he chose to do something else: make them bored.
In his famous 1959 experiment, dubbed the forced-compliance paradigm, Students were asked to perform long repetitive laboratory tasks. They were then hired by the experimenter as an “assistant” and paid either $1 or $20 to tell a waiting fellow student (an actor) that the tasks were enjoyable and interesting, even though they were clearly very boring. A control group of students simply engaged in the tasks without being asked to speak to another student. After the experiment, each student indicated how much they had enjoyed the tasks.
The results showed that students paid $1 evaluated the tasks as significantly more enjoyable than those paid $20. The $20 students did not express attitudes significantly different from the control students, saying truthfully how boring the task was.
Festinger correctly predicted that the subjects who were paid $1 for lying later evaluated the tasks as more enjoyable than those who were paid $20. The subjects who were paid $20 should not have experienced cognitive dissonance because the payment provided a sufficient justification for the “wasted time” they just underwent, whereas those only paid $1 needed to justify to themselves that it had not been a waste of their time.
Since the original publication, many studies have tried to put their own spin on why people respond the way they do to dissonance, but a meta-analysis in 2007 showed that recent research over the past 50 years actually supports Festinger’s original reasons.
How it feels to have cognitive dissonance
Cognitive dissonance does not feel good.
In fact, it can cause such strong anxiety and negative feelings that people will go to great lengths to try and resolve it. A 2017 EEG study showed that when faced with a choice that elicited cognitive dissonance, people experienced significant psychological tension. A 1978 field test showed that dissonance after making a purchase caused anxiety in people, and even a previously classified 1964 military report showed that dissonance can be especially powerful when people are under stress or deprivation.
Interestingly, it seems like multiple parts of the brain are affected by processing cognitive dissonance. A 2014 fMRI study and a 2009 fMRI study found that dissonance was associated with increased neural activation in brain regions including the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), anterior insula, inferior frontal gyrus, and precuneus.
This may explain why it can feel so uncomfortable or stressful for all of us when we need to deal with conflicting thoughts or actions, and why people will do illogical, irrational or inefficient things to make the feeling go away.
How people try to reduce cognitive dissonance
Along with the original Festinger studies, other studies (2014) have looked at explaining the various ways which people try to reduce the stress and discomfort of their dissonance:
- Changing their behaviour: Altering their actions to be more in line with their thoughts. For example, going to the gym if they believe they are getting unhealthy
- Changing their thoughts: Altering their thoughts to be more in line with what they are doing. For example, a smoker might decide that smoking is not that bad
- Justifying behaviour or cognition: Changing the conflicting thoughts. A person might say, “I’m allowed to cheat my diet every once in a while”.
- Adding new thoughts to justify others: Introducing new elements to reconcile the inconsistency. An individual might justify eating a doughnut by planning to (at least thinking about) spend extra time at the gym.
- Altering the importance of the thoughts: Change the importance of the conflicting belief.
- Ignoring or denying conflicting information: Avoiding or dismissing information that increases dissonance or stress. This could involve denying that a celebrity they like really did bad things. People may also question the sources or validitiy of contradictory information.
- Distraction or forgetting: Engaging in distractions to avoid directly addressing the discrepancy directly. This might involve using phones or other devices.
- Continual Information Search: This involves selectively seeking information that supports existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory information, a form of confirmation bias.
- Attitude Change: Re-evaluating attitudes and expectations, such as adjusting price perceptions relative to external references or linking price with quality.
- Minimisation: Reducing the perceived importance of dissonant elements, such as downplaying the significance of money or saving.
- Denial of responsibility: Denying accountability for behaviour that is counter to a person’s attitude.
- Finding social support: Gaining support from others who share the same dissonance to reinforce one’s beliefs or actions, such as might happen in online echo chambers.
The impact of cognitive dissonance on creativity and innovation
While there is no direct research on how cognitive dissonance may affect creativity or innovation, there is evidence to suggest it makes people less willing to try new things.
In essence, the fear that doing something different might result in a feeling of dissonance afterwards is strong enough for people to want to avoid this potential feeling. This is one explanation for why people tend to stick with the status quo, even when they know more efficient or better options are out there.
Another reason from the research shows that once people have set their thoughts and attitudes on a subject, they often try to keep their actions consistent with these thoughts and beliefs by committing to them. This alignment could make them less open to trying new, contradictory things, as it might threaten their already justified commitment.
All of this makes it easier to understand why so many company leaders and decision makers prefer to say no to new ideas, especially those which are more creative.
It also explains why people can feel a physical sense of anxiety or tension if you try to push them past their creative comfort barrier of boring ideas, into things which are wilder and less understood. I have seen this firsthand many times, with people becoming physically tense or stressed if you keep asking them to come up with more and more creative ideas.
Perhaps if we understand where this stress and anxiety is coming from, cognitive dissonance, we can also become better at dealing with it together.
