By: Kara Nayfa
Political issues, such as illegal immigrants, gun control laws, and abortion laws seem to be the center of attention for Americans over the last several years. Politicians and United States citizens are taking their stance on these issues with individuals on each side of these issues believing their belief is the correct belief. Many of the beliefs concerning these political issues overlap in some way or another; however, individuals may feel strongly in one direction about one issue but strongly in the opposite direction about another overlapping issue. These two beliefs are conflicting and may cause cognitive dissonance for an individual.
An individual’s beliefs and/or their behaviors do not always align perfectly, which creates inconsistencies for that individual. Cognitive dissonance is the theory that explains how people deal with these inconsistencies by attempting in some way to restore consistency between those beliefs and/or behaviors (Vries, Byrne, & Kehoe, 2015). For example, individuals who want stricter gun laws to protect children but support a woman’s right to choose may experience dissonance because these viewpoints seem to be contradictory. One belief supports keeping children alive while the other supports potentially aborting children. How might an individual reconcile these inconsistencies?
A person who wants stricter gun laws but is pro-choice may seek to reconcile cognitive dissonance. If a person with those beliefs is presented with information that suggests they are conflicting beliefs, they may seek others who have those same beliefs or refuse to believe the conflicting information as a way of reducing any dissonance being experienced (Freijy & Kothe, 2013). These individuals may also only seek others who share their beliefs to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance in the first place (Frimer, Skitka, & Motyl, 2017). Another explanation for the dissonance could be that the person realizes the positive aspects of being pro-life or supporting the right to bear arms and realizes some of the negative aspects of their original viewpoints. To restore consistency in their beliefs, they may choose to view their original viewpoints more positively and the alternative viewpoints more negatively, which is known as the free choice paradigm (Freijy & Kothe, 2013). Additionally, a person struggling with these two viewpoints may experience dissonance if their peers, parents, or another group of people important to them believe in stricter gun laws and a woman’s right to choose because the person may be putting effort into these issues for little purpose other than to please people who are important to them. To reduce dissonance, the person may begin to justify their actions as being important and worth putting effort into the causes. This is known as the effort justification paradigm (Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, & Levy, 2015).
Cognitive dissonance can occur for a variety of reasons that cause an individual to feel discomfort over their conflicting beliefs and/or behaviors. As a result of this discomfort, individuals attempt to justify reasons for these conflicting beliefs and/or behaviors to reduce the discomfort. Despite the many ways (some of which are listed above) to reduce dissonance, it could be possible that a person may not be able to reduce dissonance resulting in changed beliefs and/or behaviors. For example, someone who initially does not believe they are overweight but has peers tell them they are overweight and/or visits a doctor who tells them they are overweight may not be able to reduce the cognitive dissonance from the conflicting information. This may result in the individual changing their belief about themselves from not believing they are overweight to now believing they are overweight. Repeated exposure to other beliefs or perspectives may increase the desire to change beliefs and/or behaviors as well. Additionally, attitude may play an important role in whether an individual changes their belief and/or behavior (Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009). If their attitude towards a belief is important to them or they feel certain about the belief, they may be more willing to at least look at an opposing viewpoint to their belief. Thus, if the individual is exposed to opposing viewpoints more, they may be more willing to change their beliefs/behaviors. Individuals may be able to find many ways to reduce cognitive dissonance, it may not always be possible, which could potentially result in changed beliefs and/or behaviors.
An individual’s beliefs and/or their behaviors do not always align perfectly, which creates inconsistencies for that individual. Cognitive dissonance is the theory that explains how people deal with these inconsistencies by attempting in some way to restore consistency between those beliefs and/or behaviors (Vries, Byrne, & Kehoe, 2015). For example, individuals who want stricter gun laws to protect children but support a woman’s right to choose may experience dissonance because these viewpoints seem to be contradictory. One belief supports keeping children alive while the other supports potentially aborting children. How might an individual reconcile these inconsistencies?
A person who wants stricter gun laws but is pro-choice may seek to reconcile cognitive dissonance. If a person with those beliefs is presented with information that suggests they are conflicting beliefs, they may seek others who have those same beliefs or refuse to believe the conflicting information as a way of reducing any dissonance being experienced (Freijy & Kothe, 2013). These individuals may also only seek others who share their beliefs to avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance in the first place (Frimer, Skitka, & Motyl, 2017). Another explanation for the dissonance could be that the person realizes the positive aspects of being pro-life or supporting the right to bear arms and realizes some of the negative aspects of their original viewpoints. To restore consistency in their beliefs, they may choose to view their original viewpoints more positively and the alternative viewpoints more negatively, which is known as the free choice paradigm (Freijy & Kothe, 2013). Additionally, a person struggling with these two viewpoints may experience dissonance if their peers, parents, or another group of people important to them believe in stricter gun laws and a woman’s right to choose because the person may be putting effort into these issues for little purpose other than to please people who are important to them. To reduce dissonance, the person may begin to justify their actions as being important and worth putting effort into the causes. This is known as the effort justification paradigm (Harmon-Jones, Harmon-Jones, & Levy, 2015).
Cognitive dissonance can occur for a variety of reasons that cause an individual to feel discomfort over their conflicting beliefs and/or behaviors. As a result of this discomfort, individuals attempt to justify reasons for these conflicting beliefs and/or behaviors to reduce the discomfort. Despite the many ways (some of which are listed above) to reduce dissonance, it could be possible that a person may not be able to reduce dissonance resulting in changed beliefs and/or behaviors. For example, someone who initially does not believe they are overweight but has peers tell them they are overweight and/or visits a doctor who tells them they are overweight may not be able to reduce the cognitive dissonance from the conflicting information. This may result in the individual changing their belief about themselves from not believing they are overweight to now believing they are overweight. Repeated exposure to other beliefs or perspectives may increase the desire to change beliefs and/or behaviors as well. Additionally, attitude may play an important role in whether an individual changes their belief and/or behavior (Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009). If their attitude towards a belief is important to them or they feel certain about the belief, they may be more willing to at least look at an opposing viewpoint to their belief. Thus, if the individual is exposed to opposing viewpoints more, they may be more willing to change their beliefs/behaviors. Individuals may be able to find many ways to reduce cognitive dissonance, it may not always be possible, which could potentially result in changed beliefs and/or behaviors.
References
- de Vries, J., Byrne, M., & Kehoe, E. (2015). Cognitive dissonance induction in everyday life: An fMRI study. Social Neuroscience, 10(3), 268-281. doi: /10.1080/17470919.2014.990990
- Freijy, T., & Kothe, E. J. (2013). Dissonance-based interventions for health behavior change: A systematic review. British Journal of Health Psychology, 18, 310-337.
- Frimer, J. A., Skitka, L. J., & Motyl, M. (2017). Liberals and conservatives are similarly motivated to avoid exposure to one another’s opinions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, 1-12.
- Harmon-Jones, E., Harmon-Jones, C., & Levy, N. (2015). An action-based model of cognitive-dissonance processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24(3), 184-189. doi: 10.1177/0963721414566449
- Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Meng, J. (2009). Looking the other way: Selective exposure to attitude-consistent and counterattitudinal political information. Communication Research, 36(3), 426-228.