Cognitive Dissonance
From SkepticWiki
Contents |
[edit] Definition
Cognitive Dissonance is a psychological theory concerning how beliefs are acquired, organized, and modified in the human mind. It has applicability to explaining the cognitive errors to which humans are prone.
The theory was first proposed by Leon Festinger in 1956 to explain the seemingly irrational behavior of members of a doomsday cult, following a failure of an end-of-the-world prediction. According to the original theory, the mind adjusts beliefs so as to minimize contradiction with existing beliefs. Recent modifications of the theory assert that beliefs are accepted and rejected according to whether or not they are consistent with one’s “self-concept”.
[edit] Example
As a hypothetical example of cognitive dissonance in action, suppose that Ken believes, as a “self-concept”:
- 1. I am a wise consumer (self-concept)
Now, suppose that Ken purchases a Fuel Maximiser™fuel-saving device for his car. Of the following two beliefs, only one is consonant with Ken’s self-concept:
- 2a. The Fuel Maximiser™ is not a wise purchase.
- 2b. The Fuel Maximiser™ is a wise purchase.
Ken then believes 2b, and goes on to believe enthusiastically
- 3. My gas mileage has noticeably increased.
Consonant beliefs also reinforce the self-concept. Since the Fuel Maximiser™ is a wise purchase, and Ken purchased it, it seems sensible for Ken to conclude that
- 1. I am a wise consumer.
By accumulating a large collection of mutually reinforcing beliefs, Ken (or anyone else) develops a stable self-concept, and a consistent mental framework for dealing with the world.
[edit] Resolution of Dissonance
Now suppose Ken adopts the belief that
- 4. “The results of the EPA testing demonstrate that ... the Fuel Maximiser™ failed to improve fuel economy”
This belief, being contradictory to existing beliefs, threatens Ken’s self-concept. According to cognitive dissonance theory, Ken’s belief system must be reorganized, preferably with minimal disruption to the existing self-concept.
For example, Ken might resolve the contradiction by disbelieving 2b, and 3, which would require modifying his self-concept to
- 1b. I am a wise consumer, who is sometimes misled by a smooth-talker.
A less disruptive way to patch things up is for Ken to adopt any of the following:
- 5.1. The EPA didn’t test representative cars,
- 5.2. That’s just the EPA’s opinion,
- 5.3. The EPA is part of the Big Oil conspiracy
- 5.4. Science is crap,
- etc.
[edit] Implications for Skeptical “Evangelism”
Skeptics are often surprised or amazed at the tenacity with which the believer holds the most inconsequential or demonstrably false beliefs. Cognitive Dissonance can explain why this occurs.
An attack upon Ken’s belief in “My gas mileage has noticeably increased.” does not merely threaten an isolated belief, but goes right to Ken’s self-concept and mental stability. It is more likely that Ken would adopt
- 6. The skeptic before me is a soulless, simple-minded, and blind fool.
as being the only option consonant with his existing beliefs.
This is not to say that an existing belief structure is totally unassailable, and indeed, a large number of dissonant facts can sometimes cause a re-evaluation of the self-concept, a state referred to as the “tipping point”. With those whose existing self-concept is strongly invested in their livelihood or social status, this becomes difficult or impossible.
Sometimes among skeptics, a question arises as to whether a particular Woo-woo advocate really believes the things they assert. Cognitive dissonance theory suggests that generally, anyone with a self-concept of “I am honest” will believe the things they have said, simply because they have said them. That is, given the beliefs
- 1. I am honest (self concept),
- 2. I said X,
the belief that X is true is more likely to resonate with the existing self-concept. Again, a skeptical challenge of X threatens the believer's self-concept; it is nothing less than calling the believer a dirty rotten liar.
[edit] Implications for Science
No mind is immune from the pressures of cognitive dissonance, although some individuals are more comfortable than others with modifying their self-concept to accommodate new facts. A question arises naturally, whether it is possible to judge beliefs in a way that avoid the pressures of making them conform to self-concept. Such a method would require a formal process, in which facts are observed without any reliance on cognition. Science has developed such processes, including the double-blind trial and the use of objective data.
