Festinger’s ( 1957 ) cognitive disagreement theory suggests that we have an interior thrust to keep all our attitudes and beliefs in harmoniousness and avoid inharmoniousness ( or disagreement ) .
Cognitive disagreement refers to a state of affairs affecting conflicting attitudes. beliefs or behaviours. This produces a feeling of uncomfortableness taking to an change in one of the attitudes.
beliefs or behaviours to cut down the uncomfortableness and reconstruct balance etc. As an other definition we can state that ; Peoples tend to seek consistence in their beliefs and perceptual experiences. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another antecedently held belief? The term cognitive disagreement is used to depict the feeling of uncomfortableness that consequences from keeping two conflicting beliefs. When there is a disagreement between beliefs and behaviours. something must alter in order to extinguish or cut down the disagreement.
Attitudes may alter because of factors within the individual. An of import factor here is the rule of cognitive consistence. the focal point of Festinger’s ( 1957 ) theory of cognitive disagreement.This theory starts from the thought that we seek consistence in our beliefs and attitudes in any state of affairs where two knowledges are inconsistent.
Leon Festinger ( 1957 ) proposed cognitive disagreement theory. which states that a powerful motor to keep cognitive consistence can give rise to irrational and sometimes maladaptive behaviour. Harmonizing to Festinger. we hold many knowledges about the universe and ourselves ; when they clash. a disagreement is evoked.
ensuing in a province of tenseness known as cognitive disagreement. As the experience of disagreement is unpleasant. we are motivated to cut down or extinguish it. and achieve consonant rhyme. Cognitive disagreement was foremost investigated by Leon Festinger. originating out of a participant observation survey of a cult which believed that the Earth was traveling to be destroyed by a inundation. and what happened to its members — peculiarly the truly committed 1s who had given up their places and occupations to work for the cult — when the inundation did non go on.While fringe members were more inclined to acknowledge that they had made saps of themselves and to “put it down to experience” .
committed members were more likely to re-interpret the grounds to demo that they were right wholly along ( the Earth was non destroyed because of the fidelity of the cult members ) . Festinger’s cover statement of his theory still needs farther account. When he says. “If you change a person’s behaviour. his ideas and feelings will alter to minimise the dissonance” ( Groenveld. 1999 ) . he is mentioning to non merely selective exposure and post-decision disagreement but besides to minimum justification. Minimal justification predicts that if a person’s actions can be changed.
with really small compensation. so the individual. necessitating to extinguish the disagreement of acting against her beliefs for something minute. will alter her attitude about the state of affairs. So. Festinger. through influential psychological experiments.
has successfully proven that if a little inducement is offered for a behavior alteration. a important attitudinal alteration is made whereas if a reasonably big inducement is offered. a individual will make it for the wages while keeping their preexistent attitude.These experiments. called the $ 1- $ 20 experiments. show us we do non like to act illogically without some account.
and that account is we truly did see the logic ; it merely took a small work to acquire at that place! In general. people do non wish feeling as if their attitudes and beliefs contradict their behaviours because this means there is a “lack of balance among knowledges. or ways of cognizing. beliefs. judgements. and thoughts” ( West & A ; Turner. 2006.
p. 131 ) . Harmonizing to Cognitive Dissonance Theory. this is a unresolved relationship. and it causes emphasis and overall unpleasantness ( West & A ; Turner.
2006 ) . To alleviate this emphasis. people either alter their behaviours or their attitudes and beliefs so there can be a harmonic relationship ; a consonant relationship is when “two elements are in equilibrium with one another” ( West & A ; Turner. 2006.
p. 131 ) .A recent intelligence article about the telecasting show “South Park” said Godheads Matt Stone and Trey Parker were angry because Comedy Central would non let them to demo an image of the Islamic prophesier Muhammad on their show because Muslims would see it blasphemous ( Bauder. 2006 ) . In response to being censored. Stone and Parker showed an image of Jesus egesting on President Bush and the American flag ( Bauder. 2006 ) .
By forcing the bounds of telecasting a potentially violative image to the populace. Stone and Parker created a harmonic relationship with their beliefs and attitudes by taking action and demoing they should be allowed freedom of address. The issue of the intelligence article is free address. In the article. Peabody awards manager Horace Newcomb said South Park’s odiousness “reminds us of the demand for being tolerant” . It is arguable that while freedom of address is of import.
it is merely every bit of import to hold bounds. However. Stone and Parker believe in an all-or-none trade. which explains why they go to such great lengths to be violative.In a nutshell. Cognitive Dissonance Theory applies to the issue of freedom of address because being censored makes Stone and Parker feel they were being forced to act in a manner that causes disagreement with their beliefs and attitudes. In order to harmonise their attitudes and behaviours.
Stone and Parker changed their behaviour by demoing another violative image in their show to replace the Muhammad image. Kearsley said Cognitive Dissonance Theory is peculiarly relevant to decision-making. Obviously. Stone and Parker made a determination to withstand Comedy Central and in making so reduced their disagreement. Professor Mullin said Cognitive Dissonance Theory was developed by Leon Festinger ; he believed ways to cut down disagreement included forestalling it. either through selective exposure. selective attending.
selective reading or selective keeping. or apologizing after doing a determination by naming grounds why it was the right determination.Selective exposure is looking for information consistent with one’s current beliefs and behaviours. selective attending is merely paying attending to information consistent with one’s beliefs and behaviours. selective reading is construing obscure information so it goes along with one’s beliefs and attitudes. and selective keeping is merely retrieving information that is consistent with beliefs and behaviours. Harmonizing to West and Turner ( 2006 ) . magnitude of disagreement is the sum of uncomfortableness a individual feels and it determines what actions a individual will take to cut down disagreement.
There are three factors that influence the magnitude of disagreement: importance. disagreement ratio. and principle. West and Turner said importance is the grade of significance of an issue. disagreement ratio is “the sum of unresolved knowledges relative to the sum of harmonic knowledges ( West & A ; Turner.
2006. p. 135 ) . and principle is the account of why there is an incompatibility between attitudes and behaviours.In the instance of Stone and Parker. make up one’s minding to aerate an violative image is consistent with their attitudes and beliefs. Stone and Parker have the belief that it is of import to hold free address rights and their attitude is they like to exert their rights. so it makes sense that they behaved in a manner that shows they have free address rights.
Rock and Parker do non believe in censoring ; it causes them disagreement. Because they were willing to take action to rectify this disagreement. their magnitude of disagreement was great.
The issue of freedom of address is of import ; in the show the character Kyle said “Either it’s all OK. or none of it is. Make the right thing” ( Bauder.
2006. p. 1 ) . Blanton. Pelham. Dehart and Carvallo ( 2001 ) said one ground people may take such bold actions is due to overconfidence.
As the “cognitive disagreement associated with feeling uncertain ( is ) increased. assurance ( is ) increased in a manner that was non warranted by the additions in accuracy” ( Blanton. Pelham. Dehart & A ; Carvallo. 2001. p. 382 ) .
Rock and Parker felt unsure about the extent of their freedom of address rights. so they became more confident about holding freedom of address rights. They may non hold been accurate about what freedom of address rights they had. but they managed to force the bounds with the image of Jesus and the American flag.Cognitive Dissonance Theory explains good what Stone and Parker believe and their attitudes towards freedom of address. However. it is does non adequately explain their behaviour.
Although it explains why Stone and Parker would demo a perchance violative image. Cognitive Dissonance Theory is geared more towards persuasion theories and how to utilize cognitive disagreement to carry people. In this instance. Stone and Parker are neither being persuaded nor seeking to carry anyone ; they are simply seeking to harmonise their attitudes and beliefs with their behaviours.
Simon. Greenberg and Brehm ( 1995 ) said another manner to cut down disagreement is through trivialization. The research workers discovered that most bookmans believed the most common manner to cut down disagreement is through altering one’s attitude ( Simon. Greenberg & A ; Brehm. 1995 ) . However.
they believed that utilizing trivialization to cut down disagreement had been overlooked. They believed that if given the opportunity. people would alleviate their uncomfortableness by doing certain values or issues less of import.In their experiments.
the research workers created different scenarios in which people were either forced to alter their attitudes or they were allowed to simply trivialise an issue. Simon. Greenberg and Brehm ( 1995 ) conducted four surveies where psychological science pupils had to take whether or non they supported or opposed their university to hold compulsory cumulative finals at the terminal of each semester. The first survey found that “when the preexistent attitude is extremely outstanding. people trivialize the knowledges instead than alter their attitudes” ( Simon.
Greenberg & A ; Brehm. 1995. p. 256 ) . The 2nd survey found that people trivialize “when the chance to measure the importance of the knowledges is presented prior to the chance to bespeak their attitude” .And the 3rd and 4th surveies found that “making of import values or issues outstanding leads to trivialization instead than attitude alteration. Overall.
trivialization is used to cut down disagreement. and people may even utilize it more frequently than they would alter their attitudes to make a harmonic relationship. Sultz. Leveille and Lepper ( 1999 ) said people rationalize the picks they make. They believed Cognitive Dissonance Theory would “predict merely a greater separation with a hard pick than with an easy choice” . The research workers conducted an experiment where participants had to judge how appealing 11 postings were to them. Once they judged.
they were allowed to take one posting to take place with them. Sultz. Leveille and Lepper ( 1999 ) wanted to cognize if after doing a hard pick.
the participants would apologize they had made the better pick to cut down disagreement. They predicted “the sum of disagreement is greater the closer the options are in desirableness before the pick is made” ( Sultz. Leveille. & A ; Lepper. 1999. p. 44 ) .However.
they found that the rating of the chosen option in a set of options where it was easy to take a posting rose more than the rating of the jilted option in a set of options where it was more hard to take a posting. In a manner. this is like minimum justification. which is the thought that one merely needs to offer “the least sum of incentive necessary to obtain compliance” ( West & A ; Turner. 2006. p.
137 ) . Although this deals more with the persuasion facet of Cognitive Dissonance Theory. it supports the thought that the posting chosen in a hard set of picks rose more in rating than the jilted posting in an easy set of picks.
Minimal justification provinces that given a state of affairs where the individual receives a little wages. that individual will warrant his or her actions and get down to believe what he or she did was the best thing to make. and taking to make it was a good thing.The intelligence article and the empirical surveies are similar with how they applied theory because they all explained ways of cut downing disagreement. However. there are some differences between the surveies and the article because the article simply shows there was a demand to take action in order to cut down disagreement whereas the surveies found specific ways to cut down disagreement. The surveies themselves differed because one survey found trivialization was another alternate to cut down disagreement and the 2nd survey found that there are different grades of disagreement and different ways people rationalize to alleviate disagreement.
Cognitive Dissonance Theory does non use to all state of affairss. and it does non wholly use to the issue of free address in the intelligence article. It does non explicate why Stone and Parker showed an perchance violative image of Jesus and the American flag.
it simply explains that Stone and Parker had to take some kind of action to cut down disagreement. Some of Cognitive Dissonance Theory’s defects are that is applies largely to persuasion theories ; it does non needfully use to all cases where people feel disagreement. It does assist explicate how to carry people by working their feelings of disagreement. but it does non supply many options for alleviating their uncomfortableness.One manner to do the theory more applicable to more state of affairss is to include trivialization and rationalisation as ways of cut downing disagreement in the theory.
Another defect of the theory is the get bying mechanisms listed in the theory. Although selective exposure. selective attending. selective reading and selective keeping are effectual ways of forestalling disagreement. they focus more on attitude alterations. and do non let for behavioural alterations. Cognitive Dissonance Theory is an effectual manner of explicating why people may either alter their attitudes or their beliefs.
There are many ways of cut downing disagreement ; some ways are non every bit good known as others. but it is of import to be unfastened to all options. Overall. it is of import to people to cut down their degrees of uncomfortableness.Template OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCEThe templet of cognitive disagreement is where they replace God with Satan. visible radiation with darkness by naming darkness visible radiation.
This is the beginning of our cognitive disagreement and it takes topographic point all of the clip.Therefore. when it is obvious that the existence is governed by a brilliant originative power and that following the built-in natural and moral design consequences in wellness and felicity. we are punished for adopting this position. We are told the existence is empty and helter-skelter.
Why? Because the kernel of the New World Order is replacing what is existent with what is false i. e. replacing God with the kabbalistic cardinal banker who is reorganising the universe harmonizing to his involvements. When he is done. we will non retrieve the truth.This Illuminati banker is behind most wars and revolutions ; he is behind the alleged “Enlightenment” — all designed to sabotage and command humanity. and enable him to replace God.“Humanism” merely deifies the cabalist banker.
It debases humanity by depriving us of our connexion to God.So there we have the templet: alternatively of admiting our Godhead and his design so we may thrive. we are taught to deny His being. withstand His morality. and unrecorded in a dysfunctional solipsism in the name of “freedom. ”“Modernity” is merely the satanist’s rejection of built-in order and intent. It is the glory of the anomic individual’s disfunction and reflects the Illuminati Jews’ disaffection from adult male and universe alike.
Modernism eschews the universal in favour of the solipsistic and personal because truth is cosmopolitan.Our cognitive disagreement comes from the contrast between what God ( common sense. inherent aptitude. intuition and our senses ) reveals. and what the paid prevaricators and victims of the Illuminati tell us to believe.I wasted much of my life because I listened to the bankers ‘great men’ alternatively of myself. Examples of daily Cognitive Dissonance could be: o Driving 75 in a 55 miles per hour zone because 75 miles per hour is the flow of traffic.
o “Fudging” on your revenue enhancement return. after all. revenue enhancements are excessively high.
o Stealing office supplies from your employer because he doesn’t wage you enough. o Pocketing a hard currency dealing so there would be no income revenue enhancement. o Crunching your manner through the supermarket without paying for the nutrient you eat. O Returning a frock for a refund after you wore it to the event you bought it for. o Accepting pricey gifts from sellers or contractors. a “thank you gift” in progress. O Bing an animate being rights protagonist that eats a beefburger while have oning leather places.
jacket and belt. If we want to give an expanded real-life illustrations. I can state two of them from existent life. Lets think about the adult male who is non satisfied with his auto. want to sell it and desire to purchase a new one.This adult male doesnt like type of fuel of his auto. Consumption of gas is excessively much for him and he decided to sell auto for this ground.
On the other manus he is looking for the new auto particularly for a diesel theoretical account but when he is seeking. he realizes that Diesel auto is more expensive than the regular autos and the public presentation of the Diesel one is non good every bit much as the regular 1s. He consulted to salesman about the gas consupmtion and he decides to purchase 1. 2 engine auto. He thinks that this 1. 2 engine auto has similar ingestion with the Diesel one but he is incorrect. During the metropolis traffic. he still pays more than the diesel 1.
However. he ignores that and he tries to acquire enjoy of his new auto. Another illustration from the nomadic phone industry.Two old ages a spell there are two trade names that most of immature people prefer to purchase ; Blackberry and i-Phone. I was the 1 of them and i preferred to purchase Blackberry. I knew that i-Phone has the better operating system but Blackberry Messenger was so common in my cricle of friends. Thats why I bought the Blackberry but.
in clip I realized that Blackberry is so slow and internet capacity is non plenty to me besides. i-Phone has a whatsapp courier which is similar to Blackberry Messenger. But one ignored this fact and still i usage Blackberry. My friends still inquire me ‘why do you still use the Blackberry’ . I know i am non satisfied every bit much as i-Phone users but I still say because of Blackberry Messenger. Critical EvaluationThere has been a great trade of research into cognitive disagreement.
supplying some interesting and sometimes unexpected findings. It is a theory with really wide applications. demoing that we aim for a consistence between attitudes and behaviours. and may non utilize really rational methods to accomplish it. It has the advantage of being testable by scientific agencies ( i. e. experiments ) . However.
there is a job from a scientific point of position. because we can non physically observe cognitive disagreement. and therefore we can non objectively step it ( rhenium: behaviourism ) .
Consequently. the term cognitive disagreement is slightly subjective.-REFERENCE-nut. wikipedia. org/wiki/Leon_Festingerexplorable. com/cognitive-dissonance.
hypertext markup languageIntroducing Communication Theory: Analysis and Application ( Richard L. West. Lynn H. Turner ) Icomm: Interpersonal Concepts and Competencies ( Roy M.
Berko. Joan E. Aitken. Andrew D. Wolvi )Social Psychology ( Sultz.
Leveille and Lepper 1999 )The enchiridion of societal psychological science ( Simon. Greenberg & A ; Brehm. 1995 ) The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation ( Blanton. Pelham. Dehart & A ; Carvallo.