[LINK] Cognitive Dissonance [Was: Mind Chauvinism - a quote and a link]

[Adrian Chadd]

I thought I'd clarify the situations where cognitive dissonance theory
can be applied. Here goes.

On Sun, May 29, 2011, David Boxall wrote:

> More accurately, believing one thing but finding ourselves forced by 
> circumstances to believe another. Interestingly, the greater the 
> dissonance the more fiercely we will resist anything that tends to 
> endanger the new belief.

Cognitive Dissonance is better used to describe why peoples' ideals,
morals/ethics, opinions, etc can be shifted by their actions.

If the "dissonance" is over some vaguely undefined threshold, then
the mind actively resists it.

If the "dissonance" falls below that undefined threshold, then the theory
states that "people" (and take from that what you will, see below) can
adjust their beliefs to come in line with the previously-objectionable
belief/act, by inventing some method(s) of coping.

Eg (paraphrasing research taught to us in first year psych),
you may not steal $100 from someone unless you were in dire straits,
but you may "take" 50c from a change pile if you were in need of something
small.

Note the change in theshold - the idea of stealing $100 for you or me may
be morally unthinkable, but if you're starving and have a family to feed,
you may find yourself finding ways to justify that behaviour to yourself,
thus reducing the "dissonance" between your internal beliefs and your
actions. You may have also built up on previous cognitive dissonance
"adjustments" to your behaviour. See below.

It's useful for understanding things like subtle manipulation. Another
example quoted in our psych literature was manipulating prisoners
into speaking out against their governments. If you walked up to a
prisoner and said "denounce your government!" then they may throw up
"walls" in their mind and resist.

If you instead befriend them, have them do small things to begin with to
reduce/eliminate any negative feelings they have towards you, you can put
them in a position where they're having to deal with "they're the enemy!"
versus "I'm working with the enemy." Then justifications are invented
("they're not that bad, it's only something small, it doesn't matter".)
Soon they're involved in larger scale interactions. No torture required.

This kind of "small steps" approach to behaviour modification in the
face of situation/circumstances is rather powerful and scary. You can use
it to manipulate others if you're clever; you can use it to justify
your actions to yourself.

There's more to this then I'm getting into; please hit up the literature
if you're interested.

Please keep in mind that plenty of this kind of psychological theory
was rooted in tests with white, middle-class Americans. Some theories
from the same time (eg Attribution Effect) turned out to be more
cultural than human. If you're going to try and use this to describe
human behaviour, I suggest seeing if the literature/research in this
area is similarly biased. :)

I hope that helps. I'd hate to see Link mis-attributing psychological
theories to areas that aren't entirely applicable and miss all the
other possible explanations and effects. :-)


Adrian
(with his "I'm a psychology student, honest guv!" hat on.)