Our studies did not find evidence of a role for Arousal or Dominance change, which suggest that these characteristic are less defining features of the dissonance state. While the sensitivity of the PAD scale seems moderate in regards to our results, we believe that cognitive dissonance scholars should continue to reconnect with general models of emotion to investigate the CDS. It is only by understanding the precise nature of the CDS that the field will be able to construct an internally consistent instrument for its assessment, a subject that has motivated more and more research in recent times (e.g., Levy, Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2017). In our opinion, these studies are valuable as the psychological discomfort is supposed to be the core of the theory and the mediator of all cognitive dissonance. In this context, further studies investigating the nature and characteristics of the CDS will be informative and will help understanding the processes behind cognitive dissonance. In our opinion, developing an instrument assessing a specific affect, such as the CDS, requires understanding the precise nature and characteristics of this affect.

Neural correlates of cognitive dissonance and choice-induced preference change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 107, 22014–22019. The expectation of shared beliefs, values, and attitudes from family members can additionally influence romantic relationships. If these don’t align, we might consider justifying our relationship or breaking up.

Changing the Environment

The first is that extraneous cognitive load could be beneficial because it prompts the leaner to invest more mental effort to resolve confusion or dissonance, leading ultimately to better learning. Experimental studies (e.g., Eitel et al., 2020; Likourezos & Kalyuga, 2017; Rey & Buchwald, 2011) have used strategies such as problem-solving to instigate this process, with disappointing results. These studies have not been able to detect benefits of extraneous cognitive load for either motivation or learning.

• Festinger (Festinger, 1962) theorised that a pair of cognitive elements may relate to each other in three ways.
• When our friends or partners act contrary to our beliefs and values, we perceive dissonance.
• When someone is forced to do (publicly) something they (privately) really don’t want to do, dissonance is created between their cognition (I didn’t want to do this) and their behavior (I did it).

This is often very difficult, as people frequently employ a variety of mental maneuvers. Participants in the “severe embarrassment” condition gave the most positive rating. In the “severe embarrassment” condition, they had to read aloud obscene words and a cognitive dissonance treatment very explicit sexual passage. It also seems to be the case that we value most highly those goals or items which have required considerable effort to achieve. Brehm (1956) was the first to investigate the relationship between dissonance and decision-making.

Ways to Address Cognitive Dissonance

This approach intersects nicely with models of interactive and student-centered learning as well as fitting with the principles of developing media literacy, making it a good fit for the school setting. Leon Festinger first proposed the theory of cognitive dissonance, https://ecosoberhouse.com/ centered on how people try to reach internal consistency. He suggested that people have an inner need to ensure that their beliefs and behaviors are consistent. Inconsistent or conflicting beliefs lead to disharmony, which people strive to avoid.

They extended connectionist reasoning to define attitudes as a form of constraint satisfaction. Their general model was aimed at theoretical unification rather than replication of one effect. The key idea here is that attitudes are linked together into a belief network, such that modifying one attitude requires adjustments in others. Conversely, attitude change in one area is resisted precisely because it requires attitude adjustment in other areas. The process of attitude formation and change is modeled as a dynamic network in accordance with the proposed core and corollary network principles.