Talk:Cognitive dissonance/Archive 1

2004 comments

"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 can 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.

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)

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.

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)

Escalation of Commitment seems to be directly related to Cognitive Dissonance http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escalation_of_commitment

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)

The problem here is that conflict can exist between beliefs, thoughts, feelings, behaviors, attitudes, cultural elements, etc., or some combination of the above. In an article that frequently alludes to definition, it's not possible to spell this out and so some leeway must be allowed where more narrow descriptions of conflict are taken to represent the unspoken possibilities. The alternative is a tendency to be pedantically over-wordy. 58.106.70.70 (talk) 01:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)snaxalotl

---

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

What is incompatibilfbbbfere? Johnhouston411 (talk) 20:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to stress that there is a broadening hierarchy of definitions. Strictly, CD refers to mental/behavioral/cultural elements in conflict and the associated discomfort/anxiety, but the term also popularly incorporates other aspects of CD theory. So, more broadly, CD also commonly refers to (conscious and unconscious) strategies to reduce this conflict and discomfort. As this is, in the most extreme cases, notably maladaptive and stressful, even broader and more popular usage incorporates this maladaption. That is to say, people rarely use the term to describe ordinary mild behavior (which CD certainly is), but rather to describe bizarre behavior like point blank refusal of evidence, logic and community concensus. I've adjusted the article slightly to be compatible with this hierarchy. If people find it clumsy or ill-conceived then I guess they'll have to edit it 58.106.70.70 (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)snaxalotl

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)----- Preceding Made Small in interest of clarity of further discussion. If Relevant in Future Discussion it wil be here—Preceding MicrocreditSA comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk • contribs) comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk) 12:19 18 Feb 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the logical dialectic of Georg Hegel is an example of a structure that uses cognitive dissonance. This past Holiday issue of The Economist stated that Mao's genius derived mainly from his mastery of cognitive dissonance on a massive scale. In classical music, cognitive dissonance is used to form connections between two otherwise opposing parts of a symphony. The key to constructive use of cognitive dissonance is making certain that it is humble and magnanimous. This is necessarily difficult for anyone suffering from the condition. —Preceding MicrocreditSA comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk • contribs) comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk) 11:12 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NonUseful Discussion

the following discussion paths have been minimized by Microcredit SA in the interest of a more Robust Discussion on Cognitive Dissonance.

"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)

Re FIX IT. Do you mean to say that no one in the editing community gives a damn about Wikipedia, William? If IP 24.13.192.86 won't fix it, then something that needs to be fixed will remain unfixed? That's some accusation you're making here, William. Can you prove it? --BZ(Bruno Zollinger) 13:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)—Preceding MicrocreditSA comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk • contribs) comment added by MicrocreditSA (talk) 12:43 18 Feb 08 (UTC)

This comment seems to be referring to the section "Conflicting cognitions: an example". I've removed it because it seems to be an original example, and was unreferenced. A better way to give examples would be in reference to the particular empirical studies which are listed in the article. -- Beland 15:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Problems that occur as result of people avoiding/resolving their cognitive dissonance.

Having 2 contradictory thoughts/ideas/statements and the "internal conflict"/unpleasant feeling this creates is a problem, but it seems to be a smaller problem then what people sometimes DO in order to avoid/resolve the dissonance i.e.: by ignoring or rationalising one of the ideas/statements away. For example, the following site uses the example of wanting to eat lots of ice cream and wanting to lose weight. [1] If a new study was to come saying that ice cream is very fattening, some people will avoid the dissonance by ignoring the study, as the information inside it does not match what they already "know"/think (that they can eat ice cream AND lose weight). OR they rationalise the ice cream eating (I go to the gym 3 times a day, and so I can eat ice cream and not gain weight). Such rationalisations may not be accurate, however (e.g: "it's low fat ice cream" might be ok, but "a fevent belief that the ice cream will magically not cause any weight gain" (ie.: "it won't happen because I say it won't") will probably not work. --204.4.131.140 12:21, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Plagarism

I think a significant portion of this article is lifted from the Perloff book, the dynamics of persuasion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.97.188 (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk removed from article

I removed this contribution by User:MicrocreditSA from the article as it seem to belong here on the talk page.
/ Mats Halldin (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Cognition Dissonant Stress Disorder

I would like to know how people feel about making this term more specific. I find the fact that Cognitive Dissonance is primarily labelled as a Psychological Disorder to be misleading and imprecise. The notion that Cognitive Dissonance is mainly a pathological psychological condition without useful application is absurd. After looking through the drudgery that passes for The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance I have decided that a better DSM type of classification would be termed Cognition Dissonant Stress Disorder.

Unless anyone objects I would like this Page on Pathological Psychology to be changed to a discussion of Cogntion Dissonant Stress Disorder and Cognitive Dissonance to be restarted as a separate heading under Dialectic somewhere. The new page will approach the notion of Cognitive Dissonance from a Social Psychological viewpoint. I present the following as the first evidence in why Cognitive Dissonance is a tool of philosophy, Art and general cultural creativity:

Does anyone feel like arguing that certain musical masters like Beethoven, Bartok, Mozart and almost any good musical composer have no need to use Cognitive Dissonance in the creation of quality arranged music?

Cognitive Dissonance best belongs as a subheading under Dialectic. To wit:

Dialectics are based around three concepts:

• 1: Everything is made out of opposing forces/opposing sides.
• 2: Gradual changes lead to turning points, where one force overcomes the other.
• 3: Change moves in spirals not circles. (Sometimes referred to as "negation of the negation")

Within this broad qualification, dialectics have a rich and varied history. It has been stated that the history of dialectic is identical to the extensive history of philosophy. (Cassin, Barbara (ed.), Vocabulaire européen des philosophies [Paris: Le Robert & Seuil, 2004], p. 306, trans. M.K. Jensen)). Dialectic

There is the further consideration of Hegelian Dialectic specifically,

Hegelian dialectic, usually presented in a threefold manner, was stated by Heinrich Moritz Chalybäus as comprising three dialectical stages of development: a thesis, giving rise to its reaction, an antithesis which contradicts or negates the thesis, and the tension between the two being resolved by means of a synthesis. This model is named after Hegel but he rarely used these terms himself. Rather it is due to Fichte. Hegel

I am going to see what the best way to go about reorganizing the discussion will be, but I think the Clinical Psychological Discussion should focus on the pathological manifestations of Cognitive Dissonance, which would already include such topics as Schizophrenia, MPD and others. From the perspective of Social Psychology, I feel the abstract use of Cognitive Dissonance in Social Thought is too important to have the Wikipedia discussion regarding the topic looking the way it does.<small> Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|MicrocreditSA]] comment added by [[User:MicrocreditSA|MicrocreditSA]] ([[User talk:MicrocreditSA|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/MicrocreditSA|contribs]]) <!-- Template:MicrocreditSA--> comment add</small> (talk) 07:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with opening sentance

"Cognitive dissonance is a psychological state that describes the uncomfortable feeling when a person begins to understand that something the person believes to be true is, in fact, not true." This is just an example of an instance of cognitive dissonance, not the whole thing. And CD may explain a persons set of attitudes, so it is more of a static thing than just a dynamic thing. 80.0.107.160 (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I rewrote the intro; hopefully the new definition is more accurate. -- Beland (talk) 01:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the original sentence was garbled, but the current version defines CD with the phrase "uncomfortable feeling". Wiktionary has "a conflict or anxiety resulting from inconsistencies between one's beliefs and one's actions or other beliefs.", and Merriam-Webster has "psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously", while Encarta has "contradictory mental state: a state of psychological conflict or anxiety resulting from a contradiction between a person's simultaneously held beliefs or attitudes". However, Merck's medical dictionary (Dorland's Medical Dictionary) uses reference to feelings: "anxiety or similar unpleasant feelings ..." I propose that we change the wording to "Cognitive dissonance is a psychological conflict or anxiety caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously", which is a minimal change from Beland's edit (so hopefully does not invalidate his/her efforts), but improves the tone notably. Are there any objections? Gaedheal (talk) 23:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The present definition may be slightly vague, but defining dissonance as "conflict or anxiety" could err in the opposite direction. Dissonance comes in many forms, as detailed in a subsequent paragraph, and it does not necessarily involve "conflict" or "anxiety." The former has some particular psychoanalytic connotations, and the latter is simply too narrow to encompass the various negative emotions that can occur. Most social psychology textbooks define dissonance quite broadly in terms of an uncomfortable feeling, state of tension, or unpleasant internal state. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Forbidden toy study

This may not be the place to post this but how is the issue of whether the child believed the punishment they were threatened with would be carried out not considered? The conclusion would make more sense if it said the children threatened with the more extreme punishment were more likely to play with the toy after the punishment was removed because they formed less of a negative association with the toy due to being less convinced that their threatened punishment would be carried out. 202.134.248.68 (talk) 03:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)Liam

It could also be the children that received a great threat naturally assumed the toy must be much more unique and better than the other toys whereas the other group of children just assumed it was no different than the others and had a mild rule for some arbitrary uninteresting reason (broken maybe, or has drying paint etc). It's a poor study or at least a poor summary of its conclusions. 76.103.47.66 (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Irony

I just want to say that the third box, flagging contradiction, is the funniest thing I've seen all week (given the context). I thought I was on Uncyclopedia for a second there! --Verslapper (talk) 04:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Smoking example

The example, as written here, is very poor and needs to be modified. It’s actually highly illogical — a non sequitur to be specific. The thought “I am increasing my risk of lung cancer” is not dissonant with the thought “I am a smart, reasonable human being.” It does not follow that a person who is knowingly increasing their risk of lung cancer is therefore not smart or reasonable. The suggestion that it does relies on a number of highly subjective value judgments.

In fact, a smart, reasonable human being could very well kowingly increase his or her risk of lung cancer and be fully accepting of it without experiencing any form of dissonence.

Skiing significantly increases one’s chances of suffering a broken neck. So is the thought: “I am increasing my chances of sustaining a broken neck” in such a context, dissonant with the thought: “I am a smart, reasonable human being”? Of course not!

Did the person who wrote the example mean to suggest that only unintelligent, irrational people ever engage, without experiencing dissonence, in behaviour which carries risk? Ludicrous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.61.51 (talk) 04:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Smoking is the classic example of cognitive dissonance that is used in many social psychology textbooks and lectures. The current edit is paraphrased from Aronson's textbook (which is cited). Specifically, the source states, "if you are a smoker, you are likely to experience dissonance because you know that this behavior can lead to a painful, early death." (p. 161). The textbook then proceeds to discuss various methods of dealing with the dissonance, such as changing your behavior, rationalizing, etc. It also includes a cute cartoon on the next page. Given that most humans want to live a long life, and that smoking is likely to shorten one's life, it seems like a pretty good example of dissonance to me. Your point about skiing is interesting though. Skiing has the potential to produce dissonance, as you suggest. Maybe the justifications of skiiing (fun, good exercise) and the relatively low risk of a broken neck neutralize this dissonance for most people. It's a little like the Festinger and Carlsmith study. Perhaps skiing is the equivalent of the group that is paid $20 to tell a lie. --Jcbutler (talk) 15:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I believe it's a very poor example from a textbook. Engaging in risky behavior does not necessarily denote a lack of intelligence or reason - even a self-perceived one. The act of smoking is just not dissonant with intelligence or reason. The thought “I am increasing my risk of lung cancer” might be dissonant with the thought "I am leading a healthy lifestyle", but it's just not dissonant with the thought "I am a smart, reasonable human being." To claim it is, is to suggest that anybody who engages in any sort of risky behavior experiences cognitive dissonance regarding their intelligence and ability to reason. And, that just seems completely absurd to me. People don't experience cognitive dissonance regarding their intelligence every time they choose to get into an automobile, or go skiing, or swimming, or eat fatty foods, etc. I believe the example given is misleading and could serve to confuse the true meaning of the subject to a reader. 99.246.53.30 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Baron and Byrne (2004) also use smoking as an example of cognitive dissonance in their social psychology textbook. After citing a survey claiming that 99% of Americans say smoking is harmful, they conclude that "cognitive dissonance should be very strong among smokers... if they believe that smoking is harmful to their health, how can they continue to engage in this behavior?" (p. 147). They then discuss the rationalizations smokers make to relieve their dissonance: "only a few smokers get ill... such effects occur only for very heavy smokers". So that is two widely used social psychology textbooks that suggest that smoking is a good example of cognitive dissonance. Unless you've got something else to add to the discussion, I think this outweighs your personal opinion. By the way, no one ever claimed that smokers are unintelligent or lack reason. You seem unusually defensive and hostile here. Could it be that this example caused dissonance for you, and you are trying to resolve it by dismissing the example? --Jcbutler (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be repeatedly missing the point. I'm not saying that there is no cognitive dissonance involved among smokers regarding smoking. I'm saying that when dissonance occurs, it's not between the act of smoking and the smoker's self-perceived level of intelligence or ability to reason. Or, at least not typically. As I said before, there's nothing wrong with using smoking as an example. But, claiming the smoker experiences dissonance regarding their intelligence is just nonsensical. It's a logical fallacy. One doesn't necessarily conflict with the other, so there's nothing to experience CD about in such terms. It's equivalent to saying that a person who engages in any activity which carries risk experiences CD between the choice to engage in the act and their own self-perceived level of intelligence. It's ludicrous.

Well at least we can agree that someone is repeatedly missing the point. ;) But since you said there is "nothing wrong with using smoking as an example", then I assume that the first paragraph is acceptable to you. The interpretation in the second paragraph, that dissonance is the result of a threat to the self-concept, is included because it is a widely accepted alternative explanation of cognitive dissonance. You may want to refer to Elliot Aronson's The Social Animal for additional evidence and details. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

"By the way, no one ever claimed that smokers are unintelligent or lack reason."

Huh? I never claimed anyone ever did make that claim. But, the example given specifically states that smokers experience dissonance between the knowledge that they engage in smoking and the perception that they are intelligent and reasonable. That is saying that a smoker experiences CD regarding their self-perceived level of intelligence.

What you said was, "Did the person who wrote the example mean to suggest that only unintelligent, irrational people ever engage, without experiencing dissonence, in behaviour which carries risk?" And you later protested with "Engaging in risky behavior does not necessarily denote a lack of intelligence or reason". So obviously you do believe, or were at least willing to imply, that the claim was made. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Nonsense. I posed a question to illustrate the error in the example. That, in no way, carries any implications of such a claim on my part. At best it implies that I accept a possibility on the part of the author of the example that such was his intent. And, I do hold that as a possibility, but I do not claim, or wish to even imply that such was his definite meaning.99.246.53.30 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And, I haven't smoked a cigarette in just over 9 years. But, what if I was a smoker? What would that matter? Fallacious nonsense is fallacious nonsense.

You are fond of the words fallacy and fallacious! What you don't seem to realize is that the apparent experience of cognitive dissonance in smokers is an empirical phenomenon, not something that can be resolved by deductive logic. And that point was not meant to be an argument, merely a side observation. That's why I said "by the way" and put it at the end of what I was saying. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And, I'm not arguing that. I accept that smokers experience cognitive dissonance. I'm saying that they do not typically experience cognitive dissonance about what the example says they specifically do, and that it is illogical to believe they would. A typical person does not experience cognitive dissonance between two ideas that aren't dissonant. And, what, other than to confuse the reader, is the value of giving an example that is atypical, unless it is stated as being so?99.246.53.30 (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Do me a generous favour and just answer a quick question for me: Do you believe the following to be a reasonable statement:

"A person who engages in an activity which carries risk, such as driving a car, or crossing the street, experiences dissonance, as the thought "I am increasing my risk of injury" is dissonant with the self-related belief, "I am a smart, reasonable person who makes good decisions."

...does that sound like a reasonable statement to you?99.246.53.30 (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I would say that rightly or wrongly, most people believe that driving a car and crossing the street are relatively low risk behaviors. People probably don't even perceive a threat when they engage in these activities. Since they don't perceive a threat, they don't experience dissonance. On the other hand, smoking is universally condemned by health professionals as risky. People's doctors tell them to quit, and according to the poll, virtually all Americans believe that it is a significant health risk. In the United States, there is even a warning on the package which states that cigarettes can cause death from cancer and heart disease. Or something like that-- I haven't looked recently. Because the threat of cigarettes is perceived to be a real health risk by most people, and because there are constant warnings from doctors, public service messages, and even the product itself, and because the effects of smoking on health tend to be insidious and invisible, people are more likely to worry about the threat and thus more likely to experience cognitive dissonance. Finally, the research indicates that cognitive dissonance is strongest when people perceive that they have a choice. You can hardly avoid driving a car or crossing a street, but the decision to smoke is a result of free choice. --Jcbutler (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

And, yet again, you seem to miss the point the entirely. I've said this a couple of times now: The argument is not whether smokers experience cognitive dissonance or not. I agree that very many, indeed very probably most, do. What I am taking issue with is what it is stated they experience dissonance about. The act of smoking and self-perceived intelligence and/or ability to reason do not conflict with each other. The choice to engage in risky behaviour does not necessarily denote a lack of intelligence, or a compromised ability to reason. So, there's no reason to believe that a typical person would experience dissonance between the two. Smart, reasonable people choose to engage in risky behaviour all the time. Their choice to do so isn't even necessarily an unintelligent, or unreasonable choice. In some situations such a choice can even be evidence of an advanced level of intelligence and/or ability to reason.

So, while I agree that very probably the vast majority of smokers experience some sort of CD regarding their habit, I believe very few, if any, experience CD between the two specific ideas stated in the example. The example in the article states that smokers typically experience dissonance between two ideas that aren't, in themselves, dissonant. This, I believe, would prove confusing to many readers.

If the example stated that smokers experience dissonance between the choice to smoke and the idea "I am leading a healthy lifestyle" for instance, I would have no problem with it. If it stated that people who habitually pick their nose experience dissonance between their choice to pick their nose and the idea "I am a good hockey player." Then, I have a problem with it, because it is confusing to the reader.99.246.53.30 (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Why don't you find a published source that refutes Aronson's self-concept interpretation of cognitive dissonance, and then we can include it in the example. Cheers! --Jcbutler (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to your knowledge of psychology, your knowledge of the medical research on smoking is not at the same level. Smoking causes cancer is more of a meme than a scientific fact. In order to say so, the meeting to authorise the text of the original Surgeon General's report of 1964 changed the meaning of the word cause to "is statistically associated with". This made the document more effective, but failed to state the science accurately. The current science makes it clear that smoking is a significant risk factor for lung cancer. The fact that over 85% of smokers do not get lung cancer makes it obvious that nothing as simple as cause and effect is in operation, and research continues as to the mechanism by which smoking increases the risk. The cognitive dissonace example would be better expressed by stating that many people believe that smoking causes cancer even though they are surrounded by evidence that it doesn't, this leads to hyperbolic and extreme statements and actions from pro and anti-smokers as their behaviour compensates for the dissonance.

Best just use a different example which isn't in scientific doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.42.235.215 (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Smoking really does strike me as a poor example of cognitive dissonance. I assume it is used often in textbooks because it's easy to illustrate the point if one does not have any experience with chemical addiction or at least a developed grasp of it. I don't think there's cognitive dissonance in thinking "I value my continued level of sanity as being worth an increased chance of contracting lung cancer and dying an earlier death when I am (probably) over 50." This is often accompanied by a thought roughly equivocal to "without lowering my stress level, my ability to function normally may become impaired to the point that there is a chance that I may do something else that meaningfully reduces my projected lifespan/chance to procreate." To elaborate, people will endure a physical toll for anything that helps them procure resources that might stabilize or lengthen their life. If you need to smoke in order to competently do what is required of you in your vocation or as a spouse, or simply to function on a day-to-day basis without being extremely irritated, there isn't cognitive dissonance even if you know that you are simultaneously shortening your projected lifespan. 71.204.141.7 (talk) 08:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, at least so far as the present definition seems to contradict the hypothesis. See my comments below under "Bad example or bad definition?" To be fair, the definition is probably wrong. Jubilee♫clipman 02:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Small cleanup

Removed the word when (time not relevant):

A powerful cause of dissonance is when an idea conflicts --Ihaveabutt (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Suggested sub-section, or at least reference — Re: Humor

My qualifications to expound, and leisure to research are limited. But much of human humor and laughter, whether uncomfortable, acknowledging; or at a sudden revelation seems to stem from either the conflict of cognitive dissonance or from the conciliation of it which philosophers, comedians and average people manage to get us to suddenly and unexpectedly picture and apprehend.

I think the import of humor to the human experience is immeasurable. I therefore dare suggest such a serious and important concept as cognitive dissonance, which has resulted in abolishment of slavery and revolt at war atrocities; which has jolted minds out of complacency and any number of individual psycopathologies; merits a notable mention in the area of humor (which has participated in those same revelations in its own right).

I am not a Cognitive Scientist (although I love all four major sub-fields), nor a comedian. But I sense a gaping chasm in this article with regards to humor as a direct effect of cognitive dissonance and vice-versa. It is one of the greater, if not the greatest short feedback loops of cognitive dissonance. Humor is as of yet still ephemeral, ineffable and for the most part unpredictable, I know. I'm not sure I'm comfortable with someone coming up with equations to predict how funny something might be. They must exist, or the mind of Robin Williams wouldn't be, emergence aside...

I hope someone more apt than I will append to this article with regards to this topic / sub-field of study, or at least concur that a "See Also" link is merited. I don't want to just add one without consultation with the wider Wikipedia community.

I apologize for not adhering to the "rules" to post here. But as a reader and dilettante, I think it is important enough to mention even as I solicit your pardon for the breech in etiquette. Insofar as this post belongs elsewhere, kindly point me at where the content of this article may be more openly discussed and I will happily delete this.

189.140.29.61 (talk) 11:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC) —Manuel in México, D.F.

Clarification needed

[...]students were asked to perform boring and tedious tasks (e.g. turning pegs a quarter turn, over and over again). The tasks were designed to generate a strong, negative attitude. After an hour of working on the tasks, participants were asked to persuade another subject (who was actually a confederate) that the dull, boring tasks the subject had just completed were actually interesting and engaging. Some participants were paid $20 for the favor, another group was paid $1, and a control group was not asked to perform the favor.

The last sentence is clear as mud. Which the favor? What were the participants paid for -- for doing the boring task (in which case the sentence should be moved before "After an hour..." to make the order logical), or was it the amount they offered to "replacements" or...? Further, "a control group was not asked to perform the favor." falls straight from Mars and creates utter confusion. Even the succeeding paragraph does not significantly clarify point of the experiment. No such user (talk) 07:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bad examples or bad definition?

The opening definition says: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. However the examples do not bear out this definition. The fox in Aesop's Fable simply walks away without any uncomfortable feeling. (The word sentience seems wrong, too: neither sentient condition or character nor capacity for sensation or feeling [2] could reduce anything, merely observe or react to it.) Smoking, per se, is not an example: I smoke and realise that it causes cancer but I have no uncomfortable feelings due to the facts. Perhaps the editor meant that sometimes smoking can cause cognitive dissonance in new smokers or quitters? If so this needs clarification. Finally, the group in Festinger's experiment exhibited no uncomfortable feelings but rather expanded their cult! (In fact, there is no mention in this section of the article of their feelings at all.) Either the definition is fundamentally wrong or the examples need expanding to square with it. Or both. Jubilee♫clipman 01:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Postdecision dissonance

This could also be explained as post-rejection rationalisation without any dissonance: they simply changed their minds and decided the rejects were rubbish after all. No dissonance there so this is another bad example. Some of the other sections of Theory and research are actually very difficult to follow, BTW, could someone who knows this subject try to clarify. Much of the problem is in the use of language (internalize the attitude they were induced to express, counter-attitudinal essay-writing) and it is possibly over-summarised thus losing the full implications of the experiments (eg why were these conclusions reached, not others?) Jubilee♫clipman 02:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Absurdity of Cognitive Dissonance as Presently Defined

I seriously object to this article and the notion that Cognitive Dissonance is, by its very nature, pathological. The studies cited on the other page will be looked at in detail. The article must change. I would like to get some actual clinical psychologists and psychiatrists in this discussion instead of this chump writing about UFOs. I propose the pathology be termed Cognitive Dissonant Stress Disorder as well as a disambiguation from the notion of Cognitive Dissonance as it relates to Logical Dialectic. I look forward to creating a useful discussion out of the present mess. Please join. Thank You. MicrocreditSA (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If no one posts any objections, I am going to begin sorting this out by aggressively cleaning up this page. Then we can have a discussion for a week or two about replacing the article. Thank You. MicrocreditSA (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This part is just plain wrong:

Often in the case of Cognitive Dissonance one may suffer from secondary symptoms such as the inflammation of vital organs and in the worst case auto-immune problems. While few of these cases have ever been recorded, the survival rate is relatively high. Currently studies are continuing on what causes immune and organ failures due to Cognitive Dissonance. Some studies in the preliminary stages claim it has to do with the brain sending out wrong information to neurons which can cause the immune system to attack itself.

There is ZERO evidence to support any of this, and its written very vaguely. It is garbage. It is written by someone with very limited scope of this area of medicine. In fact, I bet you 100 internet bucks it was written by some Joe with an autoimmune disease that is desperately looking for a rhyme and reason for his symptoms.

76.88.8.156 01:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and I think crap like that should be unceremoniously removed. Even in a less hyperventilating form, it's an assertion about stress, and properly belongs in stress or psychoimmunology (where it should still be unceremoniously removed, prolly). The definitive reason for removing it from this article is that you could put it in an article on anything that putatively induced stress ... "often in the case of 'your puppy being hit by a car' one may suffer from secondary symptoms ... blah blah blah ...". I encourage everyone to be braver about removing badly worded crap ... if the information is important, someone will eventually re-incorporate it in a much better written form. Fear of deletion causes a lot of Wikipedia to be tortuous, bloated and repetitive. 58.106.70.70 (talk) 01:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)snaxalotl

Thank you very much for clarifying the free-association of "cognitive dissonance" into "stress". I thought it was just vitamin-spam.

--Ryan94114 (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

washing hands: really?

I see that there is a citation for this, but I have to say that I am skeptic of the concept that washing one's hands can have a lasting effect, or any major one at all, on the thoughts of somone having made a decision. I'll personally say that wether or not I wash my hands after making a descision will have me regret it more or less. I believe that the psychology community should do a little more testing before believing that as fact. Sompm (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I looked into it. There are many experiments confirming this finding (I added just one more source). One of the studies was even cited as many as 28 times, so I think it's safe to say "washing away your sins" is funny, but true. Tesseract2 (talk) 17:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

fox & grape

Second mention of fox & grape seems excessive. Solution is to tighten text or substitute "grass is greener?"

--Ryan94114 (talk) 08:50, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

NY Times Source

The April 8th, 2008 issue of the Science Times section of The New York Times featured the Monty Hall problem in an article on cognitive dissonance. From the article by John Tierney:

The Monty Hall Problem has struck again, and this time it’s not merely embarrassing mathematicians. If the calculations of a Yale economist are correct, there’s a sneaky logical fallacy in some of the most famous experiments in psychology.

The economist, Dr. M. Keith Chen, has challenged research into cognitive dissonance, including the 1956 experiment that first identified a remarkable ability of people to rationalize their choices. Dr. Chen says that choice rationalization could still turn out to be a real phenomenon, but he maintains that there’s a fatal flaw in the classic 1956 experiment and hundreds of similar ones. He says researchers have fallen for a version of what mathematicians call the Monty Hall Problem, in honor of the host of the old television show, “Let’s Make a Deal.”

(I posted this source in both article talk pages) — Becksguy (talk) 18:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a link to Dr. Chen's working paper on the subject. Any objections to adding the following in the "Challenges and qualifications" section of the article?
Dr. M. Keith Chen challenges the basic premise of cognitive dissonance by arguing that choosing one thing over another does not cause someone to devalue the rejected choice.

More could be added as soon as his working paper is published. YRG (talk) 22:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope an encyclopedia would give a lot more weight to decades of well-replicated research than one unpublished paper. The priority should be to make the present article faithful to the literature.MartinPoulter (talk) 18:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well-replicated, but flawed research should be rightfully rejected. The priority should be to make the article faithful to the facts. In this case, Dr. Chen has pointed out a major flaw in the way these tests are analyzed. To ignore this fallacy in the name of "Well, we've published a lot of papers with this falsehood" is simply silly. Anyone can read the paper and follow that the math is accurate. Furthermore, one could easily use the methods he's debunking to find cognitive dissonance in Excel's Random() function. These results should not be ignored in the name of "faithfulness to literature". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.146.11 (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not for us on Wikipedia to decide which research is flawed, or what the "facts" are. That would contravene WP:TRUTH, WP:RS and WP:V. Working papers do not trump peer reviewed research, and it's irrelevant that an editor is personally convinced by the paper. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I moved the section to the "Challenges and qualifications" section, made a few minor edits, and added a reference with a recent study that appears to contradict the Chen interpretation. Efb18 (Efb18) 2:14, July 7, 2010

You somehow think that that contradicts Chen's interpretation, but it doesn't. In fact, that study highlights exactly what Chen pointed out. Even if your preferences are purely arbitrary and random, you should prefer the third object 2/3rds of the time. Just as switching doors in the Monty Hall Paradox will always give you a 2/3rds chance of winning. The fact that the choice is rather arbitrary doesn't change the math. Unless you are choosing without any regard to the objects at all the odds are 2/3rds for the second one. If you could put them in a line of likability (even arbitrarily) you'll still be more likely to chose the new object in the second choice. If you have *ANY* metric at all, you have a 2/3rds chance of choosing the new object in the second choice. 76.174.118.175 (talk) 02:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But that's not what the article says. The article discusses its results as being inconsistent with the Chen interpretation. Now, I'm not opposed to removing the reference if more people feel that the authors' interpretation of the data is invalid, but I'm quite reluctant to put our own interpretations of the data over the authors'. Wikipedia isn't supposed to work like that. Efb18 (Efb18) 6:40, July 19, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.103.38.43 (talk) 01:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Redundant refs

I'm removing some redundant references. If anyone can make a good argument why there should be a reference to a nonexistent article by Leon Festinger, or a reference to Kahneman and Tvesrski's prospect theory (which has nothing to do with cognitive dissonance), please do so. Thanks. Efb18 (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Theory & Research section

Hi, I've restructured the "Theory and Research" section. I've shifted the Ben Franklin part to the "Examples" section, and have renamed the individual subsections after the major research paradigms that are used, adding one. I'm relying here on chapter 1 of "Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology" (1999) by Harmon-Jones & Mills. Feel free to change if needed. Thanks Efb18 (talk) 02:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

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 that if the prediction of the cult or its leader did not come true then the most committed believers became even more committed. Andries 17:48, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Festinger created the theory of cognitive dissonance from a number of examples, publishing a detailed theory of dissonance reduction in his 1957 Ph.D. thesis entitled "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance".

I don't even think that Festinger's observations are a good example, let alone where it all started. I am sure cognitive dissonance all started long before there were even cults or UFOs. Cognitive Dissonance is the dischord, (stress, uncomfortableness) that one feels when has two thoughts or ideas that are conflicting, or one thought or idea that conflicts with one's actions. The animal rights/eating meat and wearing fur example is a good one. So is still smoking even though you know it is bad for you, and you want to quit. The UFO cult example is more an example of the justification or reasoning, whether rational or not, that FOLLOWS cognitive dissonance. After the UFO did not show up, the members of the cult had a choice: they could either abandon their original beliefs and accept that they were wrong, or, they could amend and adjust their beliefs to make them fit the fact that the UFO did not come when expected. They obviously did chose the latter, and did so with such furver that they attracted more believers than they originally had. But, all of this is not cognitive dissonance, but rather one example of a possible result (justification/reasoning/rationalization)of cognitive dissonancein trying to resolve it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.157.150.44 (talk) 22 September 2009

Agreed: mind precedes psychology. Festinger’s theory of ”Cognitive dissonance” includes dissonance *reduction*. Most Psych 101 classes use "cognitive dissonance" in this way, sometimes contrasting with "cognitive consistency" wherein people rationally or irrationally reconcile triangles of likes&dislikes. Note: these two theories have a more complex relationship than this implies.

--Ryan94114 (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree completely: I don't think cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling per se... It may often be accompanied by an uncomfortable feeling though: in the case of buyers remorse you first get the uncomfortable feeling (of regret), and then the cognitive dissonance: 'reasoning the regret away'. After this reasoning, the feeling may have gone completely away. Also, in my opinion, for example "buying the expensive product because it's probably better" is also a form of cognitive dissonance. It doesn't need to be accompanied by an uncomfortable feeling per se, although of course the source of the 'dissonance itself' is probably some form of doubt the buyer had (again, he or she might have reasoned it away right after buying)... So in my opinion the first sentence of the article should be rephrased to better fit what cognitive dissonance is... --83.87.147.223 (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What you're calling dissonance is actually dissonance reduction. The dissonance itself is described in the sources as an uncomfortable feeling. The first sentence is mostly okay, although it's not just contradictory ideas. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Snippet from Self-justification, new chapter Variants

I moved a snippet from Self-justification resp. its discussion page and turned it into chapter Variants. Also copied a reference into chapter Further reading (Holland et al): should be referenced from the new chapter -- Tomdo08 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Note that the "Further reading" section should be for sources that aren't already mentioned in the article. See here. Cheers. Efb18 (talk) 02:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be the other way around?

"When asked to rate the boring tasks at the conclusion of the study (not in the presence of the other "subject"), those in the $1 group rated them more positively than those in the $20 and control groups. This was explained by Festinger and Carlsmith as evidence for cognitive dissonance."

I can't help but thing this was written wrong. Shouldn't the $20 group have rated the task better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.250.28.101 (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it's correct. With the larger incentive, there's no dissonance. Try reading any of the sources on this topic. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:50, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Well that's the thing; if they had a larger incentive and no dissonance, wouldn't they give a more positive review? Why would people who feel embarrassed or disappointed give a more positive review? 71.233.13.147 (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Because they are embarrassed about lying when the only justification they had for doing so was a measly $1. Therefore they decide that they _weren't_ lying (and the task really WAS interesting); this makes them feel better (by reducing dissonance). 62.189.209.69 (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Marked examples?

It might be informative and valuable to include text and references to some marked examples of how compartmentalized and mutually-exclusive beliefs have caused cognitive dissonance in famous people in the past.

Rev. Kent Hovind for example knew he was a liar and a fraud selling Creationism occultism to weak-minded rubes, marks, and suckers but at the same time -- whether from the outset or whether gradually -- he also honestly believed that Creationism was some how "scientific" and that evolution some how did not happen. His financial frauds with the Internal Revenue Service and his self-expressed justification and excuses for his crimes profoundly expressed his fragmented mind.

And by the same token, L. Ron Hubbard started out selling Scientology to weak-minded marks, knowing it was an unworkable fraud and yet eventually Hubbard's disassociative and compartmentalized brain started to also believe the known frauds he was selling, resulting in such traumatic dissonance that he snowballed in to serious pathology.

Finally another good example is Jim Bakker who knowingly sold frauds to Christian gullible rubes while at the same time honestly believing in the frauds he sold. The consequences of his dissonance were made further extreme by his innate homosexuality which was suppressed even while encouraged within the Assembles Of God Christian cult. NotSoOldHippy (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Children playing with the forbidden toy

Might not an equally valid reason that more children played with the toy that had been severely forbidden to them, be that such a level of prohibition makes the toy all the more desirable? Whereas a mild prohibition would not draw such attention to the toy. (Another example of this might be the story of the apple in the Garden of Eden, made all the more desirable by the strength of the prohibition). This seems a separate psychological issue to that of dissonance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.189.209.69 (talk) 14:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

A small wording problem

In the Examples section, I was confused by this formulation: "Franklin (1996: p. 80) won over a political opponent by asking him a favor [...]"

I first interpreted "won over" as if Franklin defeated an opponent, and wondered what he won over him in. This lead to some cognitive dissonance of my own. I cannot think of a better formulation right now, but I hope someone else can. Also I don't see a reason to have the "(1996: p. 80)", the information is contained in the reference after the quote and disrupts the flow of the text. Apocryphite (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Ben Franklin effect

The recent addition, "An alternative interpretation is that the lender changed his view on Franklin because he believed they shared an interest in the rare and curious book." looks like a personal interpretation. Is it sourced? MartinPoulter (talk) 13:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At first I agree that the alternative didn't add much. But it might be a reasonable interpretation of another role for dissonance in this situation. On the one hand, Franklin seems correct to suggest that his Rival may have felt dissonance when he did something nice for Franklin. Dissonance could have played another role, however. Maybe the Rival had negative attitudes towards Franklin, and quite positive attitudes towards this rare book. Upon discovering that Franklin liked the book, dissonance may have caused the Rival to change his attitude about Franklin (to be in consonance with the attitudes about the book).-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The effect, and its connection to cognitive dissonance, is already established in the sources. It's only named after Franklin because the incident with the book anticipated it. I've updated the article (and the article about the effect) to reflect this, and so more closely follow published sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:28, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

In order to substantiate dissonance, we would need to know something more about the person who was "won over," especially regarding his state of mind at the point of change. Nothing further is known, and it seems plausibly an attribution error to confidently assume dissonance as the mechanism of attitude change. The fact that this potential error is repeated in multiple sources is interesting, and perhaps enough to justify leaving the attribution unqualified. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, but would prefer some qualification. Cognitive dissonance is sometimes abused as a catch-all term for any possible type of attitude change. This is problematic for theoretical precision and appropriate application. I don't know of a good contemporary review article making this point, and likely the ambiguity of this wikipedia summary article accurately reflects the state of the literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removing One Image in Border

There's a picture of a statue of some altruistic guy helping kids with the caption "Justifying altruism is just one example of cognitive dissonance. In this case, altruistic actions risk causing one to feel obliged in some way to do more." This is a stretch to the point of irrelevant or absurd. There are equally examples of justifying altruism that have nothing at all to do with cognitive dissonance. Someone could write an entire book justifying altruism and feel no dissonance whatsoever, e.g. if her self concept included the trait of altruism. That image and caption don't belong in this article. Unless a compelling reason to keep them is provided, I will delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

You are discussing exactly what is interesting about the example, and why that particular sort of dissonance is worth summarizing in a picture. The idea is that calling ourselves "altruistic" is dissonant because we think of all the good we will have to do in the world, or in a situation in our life, etc. That is, research is exploring situations where people don't want to think of themselves as altruistic.-Tesseract²(talk) 05:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand the caption and unfortunately I don't understand Tesseract2's comment above. Like Jj1236, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that altruism itself involves dissonance. I don't know what these situations are "where people don't want to think of themselves as altruistic." The caption doesn't seem to address specific situations. I disagree that people calling themselves "altruistic" is dissonant: dissonant with what? It doesn't clash with a positive self-image. I agree that the image and caption need to go. MartinPoulter (talk) 09:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I don't think Tesseract provides a valid explanation or reason to keep the picture. I have deleted that image and caption. Yes, altruism is interesting. Yes, cognitive dissonance is interesting. No, there is not an obvious connection. Metaphor is also an interesting phenomena, but it doesn't belong on the cognitive dissonance page. If a link can be explicitly drawn and the connection between altruism and cognitive dissonance supported with a source, then the image could be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jj1236 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Relationship of cognnitive dissonance and bad faith?

Surprisingly, I have not read anything on the relationship of cognitive dissonance and bad faith or perfidy. Am I just reading the wrong literature? Anyone know of references connecting the expressions? PPdd (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Cognitive dissonance/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC) On an initial reading, it isn't clear to me that this article is within range of GA, but it is good enough to at least make a review worthwhile. There is a problem right at the start, though: I find that the article fails to answer my most basic question, which is, who invented this term, and when, and where, and why? Did others use the term in the same way as the inventor, or has the meaning changed over time? Did the concept immediately draw attention, or did it take time to catch on? How extensive is the literature on this concept? Some of these questions are addressed peripherally in the article, but I feel that these basic issues of definition need to be addressed right at the start, before the Examples section. I would like to see whether we can deal with this problem before continuing with the rest of the review. This applies especially because the GA nomination seems to have been made without any talk page discussion, by an editor who has never edited the article or its talk page. Looie496 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that it was Leon Festinger who created the term.ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

I am going to fail the GA nomination at this point due to the lack of response from the nominator or other major contributors. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about the late response. My bad. Anyway I realized there wasn't anything about the history of the term, so I'm currently trying to fix that. Also, I didn't realize one had to edit the article or have a talk page discussion before GA nominating. From what I gathered, it seemed like anyone who thought they found a GA-worthy article could nominate it. AddThreeAndFive (talk) (contribs) 04:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

One doesn't have to, but my experience has been that editors who have never contributed to an article are rarely in a position to handle problems that are pointed out in a GA review. In any case this review is officially closed -- the article can be renominated at any time, but perhaps it would be better to first open a discussion on the talk page of whether it is ready. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 04:30, 31 July 2011 (UTC)