of Cognitive Dissonance."

“Well something has to kill me!”

For Leon Festinger, an American social psychologist, that is the sound of a human mind resolving

conflict.

Festinger is known for his work on cognitive dissonance, a psychological state produced

by conflicts between cognitions. Cognitions is an umbrella term for any idea, belief,

emotion or knowledge.

Festinger’s "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance," published in 1957, argued that humans prefer

cognitions to be unopposed, or consonant, and struggle with those that are opposed, or

dissonant.

Due to the sheer number of cognitions that we process, they are often in conflict and these conflicts

become noticeable when we have to make decisions or are faced with new information that contradicts

ideas we already hold.

Festinger believed these conflicts to be psychologically distressing. When they occur, he said,

people will try to resolve the conflict. When 2 cognitions are inconsistent, this usually

means attempting to reduce dissonance by controlling the information we’re exposed to.

What sort of conflicts? Well, cigarette smokers often encounter cognitive dissonance. There

is conflict between the behaviors created by their enjoyment of and addiction to smoking,

and information highlighting the health problems associated with their habit.

Festinger argues that this dissonance causes smokers to become distressed by their smoking

behaviour, they may talk constantly about quitting or try repeatedly to quit. But Festinger’s

theory goes further than that. He suggests smokers use 4 specific techniques to combat

dissonance and the distress associated with it.

Number 1: Smokers may quit smoking because of messages from health officials. That’s

the smoker changing existing cognitions to relieve the distress caused by new messages.

Number 2: Smokers may attempt to justify their cognitions, for example they might concentrate

on the likelihood that everyone faces a health risk one way or another. Quitting smoking

doesn’t mean avoiding every risk, they argue, so is it worth it? Or maybe the pleasure gained

is worth the risk.

Thirdly, they add new cognitions. For instance eating healthily or exercising, a smoker might

argue, counteracts the risk of smoking. In other words, several desirable cognitions

can outweigh the distress caused by the health warning making it all together easier to

cope.

Finally, number 4: Smokers may dismiss information by questioning the validity of

the science behind a warning. Wasn’t there a study last month that seemed to prove the

opposite? Or they may ignore it by working to avoid coming into contact with negative

messages.

Festinger argued that his theory explained behaviors much more dangerous than smoking,

if people in government work together to rationalise and justify their actions, it becomes much

easier to ignore warnings.

A more detailed examination of his ideas can be found in the Macat Analysis.