Ways of Saying
… or how to explain the way we communicateSour grapes
Are you one among those who “find themselves doing things that don’t fit with what they know, or having opinions that do not fit with other opinions they hold”? Then you’re one of those who goes through cognitive dissonance (as quoted in Griffin 228).
And because you don’t like dissonance, you try to change either your behavior or your belief. More often than not, it’s our thoughts rather than our actions that we change. Because, as Leon Festinger says of his theory: “Whether the behavior or the cognition changes will be determined by which has the weakest resistance to change” (as quoted in Griffin 229). And you know — because you have tried quitting cigarette smoking several times over — exactly what that weakest link is, right? 
How does this mental change happen? How do you avoid or minimize dissonance?
Festinger says: selective esposure. You choose to be with people who are “like you.” And if you find yourselves among others different from you, you would usually look at these people and their behavior and beliefs as not something to seriously concern yourself with — because aren’t they, after all, you know…weird. And if these other people pose a challenge to your own behavior and beliefs, perhaps befriending them (rather than feel threatened by them) would solve your cognitive dissonance.
Festinger also answers: need for reassurance because of postdecision dissonance. Like when you quarreled with your classmate because of something you overheard her say. And after, when you realized what an explosive scene it was you made in front of so many people, you wish you had a longer fuse so you’d not blow your top at a drop of a pin. But then, your friends — when you asked them if they were embarrassed for you — told you that, No! that was the right thing to do! You were right! etc. etc. And now that you look back on the experience, you tell yourself that while you need to work on your anger management, sometimes it’s best to show people you’re ready to fight for your principles.
Festinger’s surprising revelation: minimal justification (reward/punishment) = maximum rationalization. Just like in your Zoology classes, you were surprised at your attendance rate in what you considered a boring course. And to think that attendance and quizzes only counted for 10% of your final grade. Then when you found yourself telling the other Comm. Arts students that Zoology was a “cool” subject, after all, you realized your teacher knew his communication theories all this time. And so what if you barely passed the course and can hardly recall what you studied throughout the sem? Every time you look back on the experience, you can only remember that it was a “quite fun” class.
This discombobulating discovery is due, according to Elliot Aronson’s studies using Festinger’s prediction, to your being a rationalizing animal — you always want to be self-consistent or to “appear reasonable to [yourself]” if not to others (Griffin 234). The dissonance you have is caused not really by a logical but by a psychological discrepancy in your beliefs and your actions. Remember that time when you were asked to sit on “the hot seat”? Remember how you felt nervous, how you thought you’d never survive that night? Remember what parts of you you revealed to the group, and how everything just spilled out you — even what you held close to your chest? And now you count as your closest friends the members of your group? And all because, as Aronson says, the higher is your investment the greater will be your change in attitude.
On the other hand, Joel Cooper says it’s personal responsibility for bad outcomes that creates the discrepancy and thus the need for dissonance reduction. And you remember how bad you felt when you had a huge tiff and made your sibling feel guilty and responsible for something that you realized was your fault after all. And so now you always feel protective towards your sibling when before it was to each one’s own.
And adds Claude Steele, sometimes self-affirmation dissipates dissonance. But only when your self-esteem is that high. What is failing a quiz in Math 11 despite your having stayed up all night preparing for it, when you can always console yourself with your high grades in your Comm. Arts and other subjects + your getting into a volunteer program where you’ll be able to fulfill your dream of helping streetchildren?
So how will cognitive dissonance theory help you make people change? Some tips follow (Griffin 237):
- Befriend the person — so you can “bypass the selective exposure screen” against your potentially “threatening ideas,” and so that “you’ll be around to offer reassurance when postdecision dissonance kicks in”
- Offer minimal justification (avoid a “massive reward-punishment strategy”) and make the person feel that they are freely choosing the counterattitudinal actions
- Make the person aware of the cost and possible negative effects the behavior will have on others, even as you try to make him adopt the counterattitudinal action
But the problem is, as pointed out by Festinger’s critics, how do you measure the “psychological discomfort” experienced by individuals? Without that dissonance thermometer, there’s really no way to say that the attitude change was brought about because of the drive to reduce psychological discomfort. Perhaps, as Daryl Bem suggests in his own $1/$20 experiments, everything can be explained by self-perception — you judge your “internal disposition” by your external behavior.
Then again, perhaps there really is more than meets the eye — what goes on behind it.
