“If I chose to do it or say it, I must believe in it.” asserts the psychologist Leon Festinger (as cited in Psychology: Eighth Edition in Modules, 2007, p.731). When we become aware that our actions contradict our attitudes, we tend to revise our attitudes. This statement fits Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory that asserts that we act to reduce discomfort or dissonance, an unpleasant tension, we experience when two of our thoughts or cognitions are inconsistent. Mkimmie, et al. (2003) investigated the impact of social support on cognitive dissonance arousal in their experiment, “I’m a Hypocrite, but So Is Everyone Else: Group Support and the Reduction of Cognitive Dissonance.” The psychologists aimed to test the impact of social support on dissonance by testing two hypotheses. While the results that were attained in the study are not more adequate to use than previous experiments, the hypothesis of Mkimmie et al. (2003) offers new insight into the cognitive dissonance theory. In addition, the theory highlights the importance of group-derived cognitions, a topic that has been often overlooked in subsequent research.
To conduct the experiment, the researchers first looked at previous theories and then extrapolated evidence from their results to develop a new theory about cognitive dissonance in a social context. The researchers assigned undergraduates between the ages of 17 and 23 to one of six controlled social conditions. All instructions and questions were presented to the participants in the form of a questionnaire. Within each social condition, the researchers attempted to manipulate group salience, hypocrisy, and behavioral support in stages so that attitude change and identification could be measured. After the exper...
... middle of paper ...
...s novel theory acknowledges that group support or lack there of, may affect cognitive dissonance. Furthermore, the experiment lays the groundwork from which other studies can explore the way that dissonance operates within social contexts. With a larger, more representative sample and a more direct way to obtain evidence of dissonance, future research may be able to prove or disprove the theory.
After analyzing, critiquing, and reflecting on the make-up of the “Group Support and the reduction of Cognitive Dissonance” theory, it is evident that the theory is not more adequate to use than the previous experiments on cognitive dissonance although it is useful for future research. On the other hand, the hypothesis offers new insight into how a group can affect cognitive dissonance. The study provides a foundation for future studies to test the often-overlooked topic.
Cognitive dissonance is having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, thus relating in behavior or attitude changes. Attitude or thoughts are more likely to shift due to one’s behavior and actions. Cognitive dissonance can be seen in Jonestown and the KKK. This psychological technique is used to get people to join the cult and ultimately become members. In Jonestown the
Cognitive dissonance is when an individual feels uncomfortable because they are a good person but they have chose to do a bad things. Instead of dealing with the consequences they ignore the situation. Cognitive dissonance can relate to Lords of the flies book on Chapter 9. The morning after the boys killed Simon thinking it was the
Cognitive dissonance theory is the theory that we act to reduce the discomfort we feel when two of our thoughts are inconsistent. There are three methods that dissonance can be condensed. Individuals can modify one or more of the beliefs, attitude, behaviors, and more, this way the connection between the two elements are in agreement with one another. Another method is to gather new information that will compensate the dissonant beliefs. The third method is to decrease the importance of the beliefs, attitudes, behavior, and etc. Dissonance theory does not say that these methods will work; only people in the state of cognitive dissonance will use these methods to condense the degree of their dissonance. Cognitive dissonance theory
Cooper, Joel. Cognitive Dissonance: Fifty Years of a Classic Theory. Los Angeles: SAGE, 2007. Print
The astute reader may notice that this review does not include any papers that did not find a false consensus effect. The reason for this is not that this paper is not representative of the literature, but rather, that it is. The uniformity of the literature suggests that the phenomenon is fairly common. Some interesting arguments as to why this is are motivational or cognitive in nature. The motivational premise is based in the idea that people are motivated to believe that they have a place in their social environment. This argument is a based in self-justification, in that if many people share a given belief or behavior, it makes it easier to justify that this attitude or behavior is either right, or not as bad as it might seem.
In several cases, folks will set aside their personal beliefs or adopt the opinion of the rest of the group. Group-think influences police officer’s rationalizations for some behaviors by preventing members of the group from reconsidering their beliefs while causing them to ignore warning signs. Group-think tends to occur more in situations where group members are very similar to one another and is more likely to take place when a powerful and charismatic leader commands the group. Situations in which the group is placed under extreme stress or where moral dilemmas exist also increase the occurrence of groupthink (Haberfeld et al.2014,
Turman, P. (October 25, 2000f). Group Cohesiveness and Conflict: Group Communication [Lecture] Cedar Falls, IA. University of Northern Iowa, Communication Studies Department.
This experiment was originally tested by Muzafer Sherif is a famous social psychologist who worked on understanding groups and their members. This experiment is to test his Realistic Conflict Theory. The Realistic Conflict Theory studies, “group conflict, negative prejudices, and stereotypes as being the result of competition between groups for desired resources” (McLeod). This study of group conflict and cooperation shows how groups favor their own members, and how in group conflict can be resolved by groups working together on a common task that neither group can complete without the help of the other group. This is proven in this experiment when two groups have to work together to solve a given problem.
“Humans are not a rational animal, but a rationalizing one” (“Class 20”). This was asserted by the much acclaimed, significant, and influential social psychologist Leon Festinger as referencing to his theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Social psychology is “a branch of psychology particularly concerned with understanding social behaviors such as” incentive and compliance (Sheehy). Festinger’s contributions to the social and cognitive branches of psychology as well psychology overall prove themselves worthy to today. This theory specifically challenged many common notions that were seemingly already accepted by behaviorists everywhere during his time (Tavris and Aronson). Its reality awakens its verifications. Consecutively, its “enormous motivational power” affects many on a daily basis (Tavris and Aronson). In the final analysis, the theory of Cognitive Dissonance by Leon Festinger is fundamental to behaviorism while directly changing the way human beings across the planet think and do.
Gilovich, T., & Gilovich, T. (2013). Chapter 12/ Groups. In Social psychology. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
By comparing ourselves with other people we categorize and label those who are similar to us as the in-group and people who differ from our-self are categorized as the out-group (Duff & Peace, 2012). We act in ways to favor our in-group rather than out group, this is called in-group favoritism. In-groups and out-groups are evident in many social environments, for example, children form groups with those who like playing similar games to them. In a study that explains in-group favoritism, an experiment was conducted by allocating individuals into groups based on the result of a coin flip (Billing & Tajfel, 1973). After having been told their group members, the participants then had to allocate points to members of their own group (‘in-group’) and to the members of the other group (‘out-group’). These members of the in-group ...
Feedback influences the amount of time the group members spend discussing the topic and could be used to dispute flows. The experiment was conducted and presented to a dozens of individuals in large electronic rooms with the "Lost in the Desert" survival scenario. Participant were given a list of fifteen objects where they must select five that would help them survive. After the picked their items were instructed to enter an assigned chat room and discus the possible choices, they had no obligation choose the same item as other groups. The discussing ensued with no one knowing whose group they are in. This created disconnect to all for a more analytical process. The results indicated that positive feedback results more in the production blocking and less effective decision-making. Negative feedback increases the amount of time spent on group discussion. Evidence suggests that groups whom receive negative feedback during decision-making process engage in more argumentation, likely an effort to support their own argument in the face of criticism. The use of devil 's advocacy by a group requires more discussion to reach agreement than is normally needed. In comparison, groups who receive positive feedback will likely require less time to reach consensus by virtue of not requiring the same amount of argumentation. (Marler & Marett, 2013).
There are eight symptoms of groupthink. The first symptom is when all or most of the group view themselves as invincible which causes them to make decisions that may be risky. The group has an enormous amount of confidence and authority in their decisions as well as in themselves. They see themselves collectively better in all ways than any other group and they believe the event will go well not because of what it is, but because they are involved. The second symptom is the belief of the group that they are moral and upstanding, which leads the group to ignore the ethical or moral consequences of the decisions. The group engages in a total overestimation of its morality. There is never any question that the group is not doing the right thing, they just act. The disregarding of information or warnings that may lead to changes in past policy is the third symptom. Even if there is considerable evidence against their standpoint, they see no problems with their plan. Stereotyping of enemy leaders or others as weak or stupid is the fourth symptom. This symptom leads to close-mindedness to other individuals and their opinions. The fifth symptom is the self-censorship of an individual causing him to overlook his doubts. A group member basically keeps his mouth shut so the group can continue in harmony. Symptom number six refers to the illusion of unanimity; going along with the majority, and the assumption that silence signifies consent. Sometimes a group member who questions the rightness of the goals is pressured by others into concurring or agreeing, this is symptom number seven. The last symptom is the members that set themselves up as a buffer to protect the group from adverse information that may destroy their shared contentment regarding the group’s ...
It is human nature for us to have a strong sense of belonging to a group. Humans get to experience a deeper commitment to a group when they make decisions and actions. This sense of ...
Several experiments and researches have been conducted that have focused on how people behave in groups. The findings have revealed that groups affect peoples’ attitudes, behavior and perceptions. Groups are essential for personal life, as well as in work life.