Cognitive Dissonance Theory and Self-consistency Theory

The various revisions and amendments to the original cognitive dissonance theory have less to offer than the original theory itself. Critically evaluate this claim using one or two examples of such alternative theories.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was first introduced by Leon Festinger in 1957, establishing dissonance and consonance as a replacement for the more general terms, inconsistency and consistency (Festinger, 1957). Festinger proposed that humans store expectations of phenomena we believe match; when these expectations are challenged, we experience dissonance (Festinger, 1962). This will motivate an individual to strive for consonance, as well as actively avoiding situations that may impart dissonance. The cognitive dissonance theory is comprised of a multitude of studies and replications as well as applications in various topics. However, the methodology of the cognitive dissonance theory has been brought to question (Vaidis and Bran, 2019; Vaidis, 2014), throwing doubt on the validity of the theory. The cognitive dissonance theory has influenced the creation of multiple revisions and amendments, one of which is the self-consistency theory by Elliot Aronson, developed in the 1960s. This theory suggests that dissonance occurs depending on how the cognitions reflect an individual’s self-concept (Nial, Misak and Davis, 2004). The theory has failed to draw as much attention as the cognitive dissonance theory and has been criticised as being overly lax when making predictions about behaviour (Stone, 1998). At the same time, the theory has offered further explanation of behaviours relating to the self (Aronson, Fried and Stone, 1991). This essay will examine the advantages and disadvantages of both the cognitive dissonance theory and the self-consistency theory, establishing that the cognitive dissonance theory has more to offer due to its applications and broader explanations.

Save your time!
We can take care of your essay

• Proper editing and formatting
• Free revision, title page, and bibliography
• Flexible prices and money-back guarantee

Place an order

The cognitive dissonance paradigms are methodologies used to arouse cognitive dissonance (Vaidis, 2014). The original theory consisted of three paradigms; the free-choice paradigm, which suggests choosing between alternatives causes dissonance because every option has positive and negative aspects (Shultz, Léveillé, & Lepper, 1999). Secondly, the forced compliance paradigm asserting that dissonance occurs when an individual performs counter-attitudinal behaviours (Paulhus, 1982). Finally, the effort justification paradigm elicits dissonance when the process to a desirable outcome is disagreeable, typically one would not wish to engage in an unpleasant activity (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2007).

A criticism of the cognitive dissonance paradigms is that moderator variables influence the dissonance resolution rather than the inconsistency (Vaidis and Bran, 2019). A study by Aronson and Mills (1959) investigating the effort justification paradigm, found that women in college participating in a group discussion as an initiation to a group, would find the group more attractive if their initiation was more embarrassing, or in other words more effort. Following this criticism, it would imply that the group was found more attractive after a worse initiation because of the moderator variable, in this case, the amount of effort applied for the initiation, rather than the inconsistency of a positive outcome and a negative situation. Considering this criticism true would mean many studies linking to cognitive dissonance are undermined because potentially none of them test what is said to be the cause of dissonance.

Additionally, paradigms are designed specifically to elicit dissonance (vaidis, 2014), therefore it is reasonable to assume the dissonance reduction techniques may be included within this design (Vaidis and Bran, 2018). A free-choice paradigm study by Brehm (1956) found that in comparison to their initial rating, the evaluation of a chosen item increased whereas that of the rejected decreased. This criticism implies that the dissonance reduction (the change in the evaluation), is part of the paradigm design. Therefore, suggesting the ecological validity of the paradigms is low as the same results may not be produced in a real-life situation. This provides the potential for revisions to offer more than the original study as the original theory has such a seemingly large methodological issue.

Moreover, the original paradigm studies primarily focus on western cultures for example (Brehm, 1956; Aronson and Mills, 1959). Consequently, the conclusions drawn from these studies are ethnocentric and do not reflect the whole population. This is a limitation because the results can only be generalised to individuals in western societies, an issue as it has been shown that culture influences people’s choices (Wong, 2009). However, since the original studies cognitive dissonance has been applied across different variables and cultures (Kenworthy, Miller, Collins, Read and Earleywine, 2011). A comparison study by Kim and Sherman (2007), found North Americans were shown to perform dissonance reduction techniques to justify their choices, whereas East Asian Americans’ choices rarely differed. Similarly, a comparison study by Hoshino-Browne, Zanna, Spencer, Kitayama and Lackenbauer (2005) found that Asian Canadians showed more post-decisional justification in response to choices they made for their friends, whereas European Canadians showed more post-decisional justification for choices made for themselves. Studies such as these highlights how replicable the theory is, this is an advantage because it means it can be studied globally, therefore creating a large generalisable sample. However, it also highlights the issue with only studying one culture. These studies show cultures behave and respond differently; without the many replications, one would assume that everyone behaves in the same way as the western subjects in the original studies.

The cognitive dissonance theory remains popular because the original theory was written in general terms, this makes it easier to apply to a variety of topics (Harmon-Jones & Mills,2019). An Example of such is consumer behaviour, having been used in the marketing industry. A purchase triggers the mind into assessing the positive and negatives of the item, resulting in dissonance from the conflicting thoughts (kassarjian and Cohen, 1965). Trust in a brand has been shown to reduce dissonance as brand loyalty causes individuals to feel less pressure to evaluate the alternatives (Sharifi and Esfidani, 2013). Particularly in modern society, there is a substantial amount of choice, this makes decisions more difficult and subsequently creates more dissonance (Sharma, 2014). Korgaonkar and Moschis (1982), (as cited in Telci, Maden and Kantur, 2011) found that high expectations of a high-involvement product would lead to more positive evaluations after purchase. This encouraged marketers of high-involvement products to produce advertisements that evoke high expectations. It could be concluded that the cognitive dissonance theory is superior because the practical application of a theory provides evidence that the theory is ecologically valid, as it has been applied to a real-life situation that supports the theory’s hypothesis.

Alternatively, one major advantage of the self-consistency theory is the way that it explains hypocrisy. A hypocrisy experiment that looked at condom use, found that when preaching about safe sex, subjects forced to describe their instances in which condoms were not used, significantly gained more intent for future condom use (Aronson, Fried and Stone, 1991). This would suggest that self-consistency has more to offer than the original theory. This is because the self-consistency theory can explain behaviours involving the self in a way the cognitive dissonance theory is unable to do.

[bookmark: _Hlk56983480]Conversely, criticism by the radical theory of dissonance is self-concept theories such as self-consistency are not relevant to dissonance. It has been argued that self-concept revisions are too lenient and may make predictions without referencing the dissonance ratio, defined as dissonant cognitions in comparison to the sum of dissonant and consonant cognitions, which is said to be an important aspect of dissonance (Stone, 1998). This would suggest that self-consistency has less to offer because it is too general. The conclusions gathered from the theory are do not adequately explain behaviours as they are unable to pinpoint what causes dissonance. The radical theory of cognitive dissonance also suggests that self-concept theories focus more on self-esteem maintenance than the preservation of consistency (Joule and Beauvois, 1996). This would also imply that self-consistency has less to offer because the main hypothesis of the theory appears do not apply to the behaviours that are elicited.

As discussed, both the original cognitive dissonance theory and the self-consistency theory have advantages and disadvantages. However, cognitive dissonance has been applied to alternative topics such as marketing (Sharifi and Esfidani, 2013). Thusly the theory has more ecological validity and can be used to explain a wider range of behaviours. Additionally, the main criticism of the theory, that the dissonance resolution is influenced by moderator variables (Vaidis and Bran, 2019), is not resolved by the self-consistency revision, suggesting it too has the same issue and alluding that the theory does not have more to offer. Having said that, the self-consistency theory does offer more explanation in terms of behaviours involving the self, such as hypocrisy. Nevertheless, the theory is ultimately weakened by the criticism that self-consistency focuses on self-esteem maintenance rather than inconsistency (Joule and Beauvois, 1996). On the grounds that the theory hypothesis, that dissonance is aroused when behaviour is inconsistent with a person’s sense of self (Harmon-Jones and Harmon-Jones, 2007), does not accurately explain the behaviours demonstrated, and in essence, undermines the explanation it provides for hypocrisy. On account of this, it can be concluded that the original theory of cognitive dissonance has more to offer than self-consistency revision.

References

1. Aronson, E., Fried, C., & Stone, J. (1991). Overcoming denial and increasing the intention to use condoms through the induction of hypocrisy. American Journal of public health, 81(12), 1636-1638. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.81.12.1636
2. Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59(2), 177-181. https://doi.org/10.1037 /h0047195
3. Beauvois, J. L., and Joule, R, V. (1996). A radical dissonance theory. London: Taylor & Francis.
4. Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision Changes in the Desirability of Alternatives. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 52(3), 384–389. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041006
5. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, California.: Stanford University Press.
6. Festinger, L. (1962). Cognitive dissonance. Scientific American, 207(4), 93-106. https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1062-93
7. Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2007). Cognitive dissonance theory after 50 years of development. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 38(1), 7-16. https://psycnet.apa.org /doi/10.1024/0044-3514.38.1.7
8. Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an overview of current perspectives on the theory. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001
9. Hoshino-Browne, E., Zanna, A. S., Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., Kitayama, S., & Lackenbauer, S. (2005). On the cultural guises of cognitive dissonance: The case of Easterners and Westerners. Journal of personality and social psychology, 89(3), 294. https://doi.org /10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.294
10. Kassarjian, H. H., & Cohen, J. B. (1965). Cognitive dissonance and consumer behavior. California Management Review, 8(1), 55-64. https://doi.org/10.2307% 2F41165660
11. Kenworthy, J. B., Miller, N., Collins, B. E., Read, S. J., & Earleywine, M. (2011). A trans-paradigm theoretical synthesis of cognitive dissonance theory: Illuminating the nature of discomfort. European Review of Social Psychology, 22(1), 36-113. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2011.580155
12. Kim, H. S., & Sherman, D. K. (2007). ' Express yourself': culture and the effect of self-expression on choice. Journal of personality and social psychology, 92(1), https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.1
13. Nail, P. R., Misak, J. E., & Davis, R. M. (2004). Self-affirmation versus self-consistency: A comparison of two competing self-theories of dissonance phenomena. Personality and individual differences, 36(8), 1893-1905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.08.019
14. Paulhus, D. (1982). Individual differences, self-presentation, and cognitive dissonance: Their concurrent operation in forced compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(4), 838. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-3514.43.4.838
15. Sharifi, S. S., & Esfidani, M. R. (2014). The impacts of relationship marketing on cognitive dissonance, satisfaction, and loyalty. International Journal of Retail & Distribution Management. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-05-2013-0109
16. Sharma, M. K. (2014). The impact on consumer buying behaviour: Cognitive dissonance. Global Journal of Finance and Management, 6(9), 833-840.
17. Shultz, T, R., Léveillé, E., & Lepper, M, R. (1999). Free choice and cognitive dissonance revisited: Choosing “lesser evils” versus “greater goods”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(1), 40-48. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167299025001004
18. Stone, J. (1998). Jean-Leon Beauvois and Robert-Vincent Joule, A Radical Dissonance Theory. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2, 319-326. https://doi-org.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/10.2307/1423495
19. Telci, E. Eser, Ceyda Maden, and Deniz Kantur. 'The theory of cognitive dissonance: A marketing and management perspective.' Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 24 (2011): 378-386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2011.09.120
20. Vaidis, D. C. (2014). Cognitive Dissonance Theory. Oxford University Press. https://doi-org.proxy.library.lincoln.ac.uk/10.1093/obo/9780199828340-0156
21. Vaidis, D, C,. & Bran, A. (2019). Respectable Challenges to Respectable Theory: Cognitive Dissonance Theory Requires Conceptualization Clarification and Operational Tools. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01189
22. Vaidis, D. C., & Bran, A. (2018). Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017). Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12(9). https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12411
23. Wong, A. H. (2009). Cognitive dissonance: A comprehensive review amongst interdependent and independent cultures. The Journal of Educational Thought (JET)/Revue De La Pensée Éducative, 245-257. https://www.jstor.org/stable/23765479