Action-based model of dissonance: On cognitive conflict and attitude change

An action-based model of dissonance is presented. This model accepts the original theory’s proposal that a sufficient cognitive inconsistency causes the negative affective state of dissonance. It extends the original theory by proposing why cognitive inconsistency prompts dissonance and dissonance reduction. After reviewing past theoretical and empirical developments on cognitive dissonance theory, we describe the action-based model and present results from behavioral and physiological experiments that have tested predictions derived from this model. In particular, this evidence converges with recent neuroscience evidence in suggesting that the anterior cingulate cortex and left prefrontal cortical region are involved in conflict detection and resolution, respectively. Action-Based Model 3 Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger, 1957) and its research have led to an increased understanding of attitude change processes. In this chapter, we review Festinger’s original theory, review some revisions of the theory, and then describe a more recent conceptualization of dissonance, the action-based model. The action-based model begins with the assumption that many perceptions and cognitions automatically activate action tendencies. This assumption is consistent with several perspectives, such as William James’ (1890) ideomotor conception, Gibson’s (1966, 1979) ecological approach to perception, and subsequent elaborations of these basic ideas (Berkowitz, 1984; Dijksterhuis & Bargh, 2001; Fiske, 1992; McArthur & Baron, 1983; Smith & Semin, 2004). The action-based model goes further to suggest that when these “cognitions” with action implications come into conflict, a negative affective state is aroused, referred to as dissonance. Our model posits that dissonance affect is aroused because conflicting action-based cognitions have the potential to interfere with effective action. The organism is motivated to reduce this negative affect and ultimately reduce the “cognitive inconsistency” in order to behave effectively. This way of conceptualizing dissonance processes addresses many problems with past theories concerned with dissonance, and it suggests a framework for integrating an array of other non-dissonance theories and research. Overview of the Theory of Cognitive Dissonance The original theory of cognitive dissonance predicted that when an individual holds two or more elements of knowledge that are relevant to each other but inconsistent with one another, a state of discomfort is created. This unpleasant state is referred to as “dissonance. ” According to the theory, the magnitude of dissonance in relation to a cognition can be formulated as equal to D / D + C, where D is the sum of cognitions dissonant with a particular cognition and C is the sum Action-Based Model 4 of cognitions consonant with that same particular cognition, with each cognition weighted for importance. According to the original theory, dissonance motivates individuals to engage in psychological work in an effort to reduce the inconsistency between cognitions. So, if a dieter consumed a fattening meal, he would likely be in a state of dissonance. Assuming that the commitment to the diet is not as strong as the enjoyment of the food (at this moment), the theory would predict that he will reduce dissonance by adding consonant cognitions (e.g., “the meal was the best I have had in years”), subtracting dissonant cognitions (e.g., “I don’t really need to be on a diet”), increasing the importance of consonant cognitions (e.g., “sensory pleasures are very important”), or decreasing the importance of dissonant cognitions (e.g., “diets are unimportant”). Researchers have most often measured dissonance reduction with attitude change. Attitude change in response to a state of dissonance is expected to be in the direction of the cognition that is most resistant to change. In laboratory tests of the theory, knowledge about recent behavior is usually assumed to be the cognition most resistant to change. If one has recently performed a behavior, it is usually difficult to convince oneself that the behavior did not occur. Thus, attitudes often change to become more consistent with a recent behavioral commitment. Alternative Theoretical Explanations Beginning in the late 1960s, researchers began to propose alternative explanations for dissonance effects. Whereas the original theory focused on an inconsistency between cognitions, these theories invoked higher-order, more complex processes, and changed the focus from inconsistency to the individual’s self-concept and the individual’s concern with harming others.