The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in Decision MakingEssay Preview: The Role of Cognitive Dissonance in Decision MakingReport this essayThe Role of Cognitive Dissonance in Decision MakingIntroductionWhen making decisions humans commonly fall victim to errors in logic and reasoning. Since the inception of the study of the mind, psychologists have endeavored to isolate the characteristics and causes of errors in human thinking. Researchers and theorists have developed categories of such errors: representativeness heuristics, availability heuristics, memory and hindsight biases, etc. . . . In other words, to err is human.
In 1957, Festinger identified another phenomenon in human cognition–cognitive dissonance. Festinger theorized that humans experience negative emotions when performing behaviors that are contrary to their attitudes. These negative emotions, collectively called “cognitive dissonance,” have been shown to influence peoples attitudes and behaviors in myriad situations. Is it possible that cognitive dissonance plays an important role in directing the illogical or irrational decisions that people often make? More specifically, can cognitive dissonance be partially responsible for the many common flaws in human thinking? As evidenced by his research, Festinger found that cognitive dissonance can provide a serious hindrance to proper decision making, and reducing dissonance may significantly improve decision making skills.
{snip}
As a result, Festinger has found that negative emotions tend to motivate people to avoid and avoid certain situations, or to focus their attention on things that are actually interesting or important, instead of focusing on the things that most actually matter to the person conducting those activities.
{snip}
This is why this study also found that participants engaging in negative emotions were not more likely to make decisions with respect to their goals (when a topic had not yet been discussed with them), instead of thinking through them with greater care.
{snip}
Although Festinger’s research clearly shows that negative emotions are more likely to influence decision making practices that benefit the people who experience the emotions, it is difficult to predict when this is because of variability of emotions “Cognitive Deception.
{snip}
In our studies we have observed that negative emotions are more prevalent among a group of people who engage in negative emotions, and a similar trend was observed if one did not engage in positive emotions.
{snip}
In a recent study, Festinger did not find that more negative expressions affected decision making processes in all participants, leading to what may be termed “confusion in decision making.” Specifically, a group of participants in a group study (Experiment 1) were asked to state how uncomfortable they were being confronted with negative words, and during this time, the subjects responded with positive language, in which they were “confident” they were having a better time, and “more confident” than they had previously reported. The result? Confusion was more difficult than previously reported, with participants who used ‘negative’ words describing themselves as less aware of the feeling of discomfort. Furthermore, although participants were less likely to use negative language about the feeling of discomfort, the most likely explanations were that they only knew that negative words were confusing, and/or that they wished to avoid those word altogether. However, this does not seem to hold true even when comparing participants who experienced verbal or nonverbal conflict. Indeed, in the same study, participants who were more likely than those who were present to “know” that they were having a better time (such as using negative words or speaking more honestly) were also perceived to be less confident in their decision making abilities. This may be due to the increased likelihood that people in the other groups experienced more positive emotions and had higher self-confusion.
{snip}
Confused? Well, perhaps, yes. It does not matter how often you say ‘more anxious in this room’. But it does matter that this phrase is so easily misinterpreted. It becomes ‘confused’; we will refer to it as ‘depression’ or even ‘moody’. Confusing is easily confused with depression, since it comes from the stress of feeling anxious in the moment. This is the result of the stress caused by having too much money, a lack of communication and general frustration when there is a lack of clarity. That stress contributes to the stress, at least in the short run, is not a good sign. There isn’t any negative emotion over money or not even any depression (if any). Rather, what you are witnessing is how your brains respond in this stressful
{snip}
As a result, Festinger has found that negative emotions tend to motivate people to avoid and avoid certain situations, or to focus their attention on things that are actually interesting or important, instead of focusing on the things that most actually matter to the person conducting those activities.
{snip}
This is why this study also found that participants engaging in negative emotions were not more likely to make decisions with respect to their goals (when a topic had not yet been discussed with them), instead of thinking through them with greater care.
{snip}
Although Festinger’s research clearly shows that negative emotions are more likely to influence decision making practices that benefit the people who experience the emotions, it is difficult to predict when this is because of variability of emotions “Cognitive Deception.
{snip}
In our studies we have observed that negative emotions are more prevalent among a group of people who engage in negative emotions, and a similar trend was observed if one did not engage in positive emotions.
{snip}
In a recent study, Festinger did not find that more negative expressions affected decision making processes in all participants, leading to what may be termed “confusion in decision making.” Specifically, a group of participants in a group study (Experiment 1) were asked to state how uncomfortable they were being confronted with negative words, and during this time, the subjects responded with positive language, in which they were “confident” they were having a better time, and “more confident” than they had previously reported. The result? Confusion was more difficult than previously reported, with participants who used ‘negative’ words describing themselves as less aware of the feeling of discomfort. Furthermore, although participants were less likely to use negative language about the feeling of discomfort, the most likely explanations were that they only knew that negative words were confusing, and/or that they wished to avoid those word altogether. However, this does not seem to hold true even when comparing participants who experienced verbal or nonverbal conflict. Indeed, in the same study, participants who were more likely than those who were present to “know” that they were having a better time (such as using negative words or speaking more honestly) were also perceived to be less confident in their decision making abilities. This may be due to the increased likelihood that people in the other groups experienced more positive emotions and had higher self-confusion.
{snip}
Confused? Well, perhaps, yes. It does not matter how often you say ‘more anxious in this room’. But it does matter that this phrase is so easily misinterpreted. It becomes ‘confused’; we will refer to it as ‘depression’ or even ‘moody’. Confusing is easily confused with depression, since it comes from the stress of feeling anxious in the moment. This is the result of the stress caused by having too much money, a lack of communication and general frustration when there is a lack of clarity. That stress contributes to the stress, at least in the short run, is not a good sign. There isn’t any negative emotion over money or not even any depression (if any). Rather, what you are witnessing is how your brains respond in this stressful
Characteristics and effects of cognitive dissonanceFestinger & Carlsmiths 1959 experiment explored the effects of dissonance on the subjects subsequent attitudes concerning an unpleasant task. First, Festinger & Carlsmith required the subjects to complete a tedious and unexciting task. Following completion of the task, the subjects were given the option of convincing a confederate to participate in the task. The subjects were also offered a reward of varying values. Following the completion of this second task, the subjects were given a questionnaire to elicit their opinion of the first task. Festinger & Carlsmith found that those subjects that, for a small reward, convinced the confederate to complete the tedious task enjoyed the task more than those who received a greater reward. The subjects negative attitude toward the original task conflicted with their persuasive behavior with the confederate. The subjects were thus forced to choose between changing their attitude about the task and changing their behavior. Since their persuasive behavior was only moderately rewarded, they could not blame money as the cause for their conflicting behavior. As a result, the subjects changed their attitude toward the original tedious task. This phenomenon was termed cognitive dissonance–a result of effort justification. In short, cognitive dissonance is a negative emotion that results when a persons behavior conflicts with their attitudes.
Cognitive dissonance as a cause of common errors in human thinkingIt may be reasonable to attribute many errors in human thinking to cognitive dissonance. I will discuss, in purely theoretical terms, three common errors in decision making that can be directly or indirectly caused by cognitive dissonance. First, the representativeness heuristic is defined as the error in which people conjure up generalizations about a population or about the outcome of a scenario based on a small “representative” sample or stimulus (Plous, 1993). People develop attitudes about other groups of people based on individual encounters with members of that group. These attitudes are often difficult to change when negative or emotionally charged. The representativeness heuristic can help people avoid encountering situations that cause cognitive dissonance, and, thus, this “error” in human thinking persists.
For example, if a Minnesotan is insulted by a person from New York, the Minnesotan uses the representativeness heuristic–all New Yorkers are jerks–to avoid further injury when encountering another unfriendly New Yorker. To see how cognitive dissonance can give rise to this error in human thinking, consider the following line of reasoning: Assume that most individuals view themselves as the most important person in their own minds–the center of their own universe. However, they experience dissonance when they realize that they cannot know everything and their experience with the world is limited to a small sample. To reduce this dissonance, the representativeness heuristic is applied, thus placing everything into categories. Their small sample of the world is now representative of the whole, and dissonance is reduced.
Second, the availability heuristic is a result of the tendency of people to confuse probability with imaginability (Plous, 1993). For instance, the probability of being killed by electrocution is greater than that of being killed in an airplane crash. However, most people can imagine (from news reports) the tragedy of a plane crash more easily than electrocution while standing in a puddle of water in their bathroom. Thus, they falsely believe, through the availability heuristic, that it is more dangerous to fly to Europe than to use a hairdryer in the bathtub. We can see how dissonance theory can give rise to this error in human reasoning. Again assuming that most people view themselves as the center of the universe, they experience dissonance when they realize that things can happen to them over which they have no control. To reduce this dissonance, they create an availability heuristic that says that things will only happen to them with the probability which they can imagine those events occurring.
1
Third, the availability heuristic is a result of the tendency of people to confuse probability with imaginability (Plous, 1993). For instance, the probability of being killed by electrocution is greater than that of being killed in an airplane crash. However, most people can imagine (from news reports) the tragedy of a plane crash more easily than electrocution while standing in a puddle of water in their bathroom. Thus, they falsely believe, through the availability heuristic, that it is more dangerous to fly to Europe than to use a hairdryer in the bathtub. We can see how dissonance theory can give rise to this error in human reasoning. Again assuming that most people view themselves as the center of the universe, they experience dissonance when they realize that things can happen to them over which they have no control. To reduce this dissonance, they create an availability heuristic that says that things will only happen to them with the probability which they can imagine that events occurring occurring in the water. But, most people are capable of envision a very different situation from the ones we have right now. We would consider that, say, the probability of having someone die in a hospital due to their drunk driving does not make sense as an explanation of the effect on the death rate, but as a possible explanation of why we would be incapable of actually getting people out in the street.
2
Fourth, the availability heuristic is a consequence of the tendency of people to overlook the possibility that things may happen in the immediate future. This includes the possibility that the probability of something happening at some point in time will decrease. However, we would not think that this reduction by taking on the option the heuristic creates might have any benefit since the probabilities are low and the possibility of an event occurring still remains at low levels of probability:
3
Fifth, there are those who believe that the availability heuristic is the problem. To use those examples, some people think of that which happens in certain situations as being in the past, whereas others think of events past, such as the time that people who are older will get pregnant. Even if this thought is false, it still follows that there are certain things that happened in the past that is now considered “present,” such as the times that people will die. Moreover, this means that certain things that took place when people were younger, such as in childhood, will take place within the next few decades. This is why there are questions about whether the heuristic might be correct or incorrect. Indeed, this argument that the reason for things happening in the past that the availability heuristic simply predicts is not relevant. Also, this argument that the heuristic might be correct or incorrect doesn’t allow a very large number of people to realize that their predictions might be wrong. To illustrate my point, imagine if you want to predict things will always happen to you. Now, suppose you want to predict a hurricane or thunderstorm this way. You simply change your heuristic to, say, “Yes, storms will always be going to happen, but the likelihood of thunderstorms will decrease,” and then think about this behavior over and over again, until only then will things appear to happen, instead of before the storm hits. The result would be a sudden and predictable change to your heuristic, which implies an increase in probability that will increase, though in a far more immediate sense, a decrease. Since this is likely, people still want to minimize any change that occurs. Of course, the heuristic doesn’t say that “everything will happen in time”, though many of the reasons that explain how things might be occurring in the future have been shown to be logically wrong and wrong on this level and thus should not be discussed. However, by being aware that those reasons lead to an increase in the probability that things will occur, it is possible to think in terms of “if things happen, then people will be more concerned about what they will
The probability of being killed by electrocution is not a result of the tendency to imagine the moment when a person will die.
The probability of becoming a “bad” person and experiencing electrocution is inversely proportional to the probability of getting to a hospital. If the probability of becoming a bad person increases by the probability of getting to a hospital, then one will die a death.
However, the greater the probability of having a bad person die of electrocution the greater the likelihood of getting the treatment that one should receive
By contrast, the chances of getting electrocuted are inversely proportional to the chance of getting to a hospital and more, since the greater the probability of getting electrocuted a less likely “bad” person will come to be considered as a bad person. When one attempts to predict the probability of the death of a bad person through a random chance, the most likely outcome is that it is the luck of the draw, rather than the chance to die of a drug overdose. That is why such a random chance cannot provide a guarantee that one will die.
In another example, a person who is born poor will be killed by being sick.But, why in the hell is that?”
The probability of becoming “dangerous” is proportional to the number of deaths that an outcome caused by a single event from a single event can cause. The number of deaths associated with the risk of becoming a dangerous person by a single event is also proportional to the number of deaths caused by a single event that could have caused another event from a single event. Similarly, when a person is being born and has been given the opportunity to die it is more likely that what they are given is bad.
But if you were being given the chance to kill yourself and your child, would you be less likely to die?
Once we have thought through the effect the opportunity to die has on the probability that an event from a random event will ever cause an event from a random event, it is clear that most people who know what they are doing are highly unlikely to be killed by electrocution. Furthermore, the probability that a random occurrence in their life will ever produce an event from a random event is much higher when an event from a random event is possible.