# Teaching cognitive dissonance theory: Practical advice for the classroom.

Jan de Vries, April Mcgrath, David Vaidis

► To cite this version:

Jan de Vries, April Mcgrath, David Vaidis. Teaching cognitive dissonance theory: Practical advice for the classroom. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 2023, 10.1037/stl0000346. hal-03982120

HAL Id: hal-03982120

https://hal.science/hal-03982120

Submitted on 29 Aug 2023

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology

## Teaching Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Practical Advice for the Classroom

Jan de Vries, April McGrath, and David Vaidis

Online First Publication, February 9, 2023. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000346

### CITATION

de Vries, J., McGrath, A., & Vaidis, D. (2023, February 9). Teaching Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Practical Advice for the Classroom. *Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology*. Advance online publication.

https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/stl0000346
# PEDAGOGICAL POINTS TO PONDER

## Teaching Cognitive Dissonance Theory:
Practical Advice for the Classroom

Jan de Vries<fnref n="1" />, April McGrath<fnref n="2" />, and David Vaidis<fnref n="3" />

Cognitive dissonance is an essential theory in psychology. However, communicating its importance to students can be challenging. To address this, the sparse empirical literature suggests the use of lively in-class experiences and worked examples as alternatives to traditional teaching methods. The authors have adapted these ideas and developed recommendations and materials for use in the classroom. The three recommendations are to use common language, highlight the functionality of dissonance motivation, and to rely on real-life examples. These recommendations inform two novel exercises, which use problem-based learning (PBL) in student teams. After an initial naïve discussion of scenarios, Festinger's original conception, Aronson's self-related dissonance, and Harmon-Jones's action-based model are introduced and used as templates for further analysis. The exercises are informed by the literature on cognitive dissonance theory and our experiences teaching this topic and are offered as pedagogical primes ready for empirical testing.

**Keywords:** cognitive dissonance, teaching psychology, problem-based learning (PBL), inner conflict, social cognition

**Supplemental materials:** https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000346.supp

Cognitive dissonance is a drive-like state of discomfort resulting from psychological inconsistencies in people's thinking which motivates efforts to reduce or prevent it (Festinger, 1957). Notwithstanding Festinger's lucid introduction of this fundamental psychological theory, teaching cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) can be challenging, as Carkenord and Bullington (1993) ascertained, and the authors have also

experienced. The main reason is the complexity generated by the many revisions of the theory (Metin & Camgoz, 2011). While Festinger's original conceptualization of CDT emphasized the *cognitive* aspect, Brehm and Cohen (1962) shifted the focus to *paradoxical aspects in behavior*. Following this, Aronson (1969), Steele (1988), and Stone (1999), and others considered different ways in which inconsistencies within *self-perceptions* as good, smart, correct, etc. are likely to lead to the most intense dissonance. The *New Look* revision by Cooper and Fazio (1984) highlighted that freely made choices with foreseeable aversive consequences were at the core of how dissonance is generated. More recently, the *action-based model* is gaining ground which suggests that dissonance helps regulate *goal-oriented behavior* (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009). What adds to the intricacy of the theory is that dissonance discomfort can be experienced without

Jan de Vries https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5073-895X

Open Access funding provided by Irish Research e-Library: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY). This license permits copying and redistributing the work in any medium or format, as well as adapting the material for any purpose, even commercially.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jan de Vries, School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin, 24 D'Olier Street, Dublin D02 T283, Ireland. Email: jan.devries@tcd.ie

<footnote n="1">¹ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College Dublin</footnote>

<footnote n="2">² Department of Psychology, Mount Royal University</footnote>

<footnote n="3">³ Psychologie Sociale Expérimentale, Université de Toulouse Jean Jouré</footnote>
awareness of the inconsistencies that cause it (Festinger, 1957; Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959) and that efforts to reduce it (think of distraction) may be successful without resolving the inconsistencies (McGrath, 2017). Whether dissonance is a learned aversive response (Cooper, 2019) or an innate process (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009) is still debated and how to measure dissonance is still unresolved (Bran & Vaidis, 2020). Sixty-five years of research and publications have emphasized contrasts between the different revisions and remaining issues, which has made the collective core of the theory elusive. This hampers an effective presentation to students.

Based on the experience of three professors and a literature review, recommendations for teaching CDT and two pedagogical primes are proposed using problem-based (Barrows & Tamblyn, 1980) and scenario-based learning (Cormack, 2014) to enhance students’ understanding of CDT.

## How to Teach Cognitive Dissonance Theory?

Surprisingly, given the centrality of the theory, empirical evidence on *teaching* CDT is sparse. A literature review<fnref n="1" /> yielded few papers. Some were focused on dissonance induction as a pedagogical strategy, for instance, to promote critical thinking (Chabrak & Craig, 2013), learning of social justice (Gorski, 2009), to address resistance to diversity (McFalls & Cobb-Roberts, 2001) or to reduce cheating (Stephens, 2017). A small number of papers addressed negative student evaluations of instructors as dissonance reduction strategies after failing an exam (Maurer, 2006). Disappointingly, only two papers offered research on how to teach CDT (Carkenord & Bullington, 1993; Klopp & Stark, 2018).

Carkenord and Bullington (1993) presented an account of an in-class exercise illustrating the hypocrisy procedure (Aronson, 1992). In this exercise, students were asked to indicate agreement with a list of problems (e.g., world hunger) after which they examined their corresponding behaviors (e.g., donating money). The instructors then surveyed students about inconsistencies between their attitudes and behaviors, which revealed that they had experienced dissonance. Students reported this as a valuable learning experience.

Klopp and Stark (2018) taught CDT to students with a *worked example*, which is a step-by-step application of a theory to real-world situations. One scenario they used described a fictitious

student expressing postchoice dissonance about attending one of two universities. Results showed that understanding of CDT after the worked example was superior to a traditional lecture control condition.

What the two studies have in common is that they emphasized the difficulties students had understanding CDT and demonstrated the value of enlivening the concept using examples and reflection on dissonance experiences. The recommendations and exercises introduced in this article take these findings into account and are supported by our experiences of teaching CDT (de Vries & Timmins, 2017; McGrath, 2020).

## Recommendation 1: Initially Use Common Language

Terminology within CDT is not as evocative as the theory deserves and may obscure its wide-ranging relevance. To begin with, the emphasis on *cognitive* is perhaps less than representative because it leads away from the *behavioral* element involved. Also, the *dissonance* part of the term generated ambiguity as it initially referred to two different aspects of the mechanism (Beauvois & Joule, 1996; Harmon-Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2019; Vaidis & Bran, 2018): the psychological inconsistency and the affective state arising from it. Generally, researchers now reserve the term *dissonance* to indicate psychological *discomfort*. Despite this clarification, the term on its own does not clearly communicate the process. Also, it does not help that the origin of the term dissonance is in music.

To remedy this, expressions like *oops moment*, *inner conflict*, or *inner turmoil* (de Vries &

<footnote n="1">¹ To access the empirical literature on teaching cognitive dissonance a broad search was conducted, using the term *cognitive dissonance* WITH *psychology education* OR *higher education* OR *undergraduate teaching*. The following databases were included: PsycInfo, PsycArticles, Medline, CINAHL, Education Research Complete, and ERIC. The search returned over 800 results, focused on: (a) describing instances of cognitive dissonance; (b) using cognitive dissonance to illustrate another concept; or (c) using cognitive dissonance as an educational intervention. Only two empirical papers directly referred to teaching CDT. Although our review of the literature did not cover introductory and social psychology textbooks or online materials, the emerging impression is that while excellent explanations of CDT are provided (see for instance, Weiten, 2021; Aronson & Aronson, 2018; Neuhaus, 2021), interactive exercises and support materials such as we have developed are not commonly accessible.</footnote>
Timmins, 2017) can be used. The first one highlights the moment of first awareness of dissonance; for instance, when a mistake is made. Like an inner *alarm bell*, it tells us something is wrong, and we should do something about it (de Vries et al., 2015; de Vries & Timmins, 2016). The second and third terms indicate a state that may linger, if unresolved. Understanding also benefits from relating dissonance discomfort to familiar affective states such as guilt, shame, embarrassment, and regret (see Devine et al., 2019; de Vries & Timmins, 2017). Finally, the distinction between dissonance induction and reduction (Tryon & Misurell, 2008) is essential to fully understand CDT. Unfortunately, Festinger's use of the musical term *consonance* to indicate resolved dissonance does not evoke the affect associated with it. In contrast, *relief* or *peace of mind* may communicate this state effectively to students and while these do not cover all dissonance reduction outcomes, they provide an important step toward understanding CDT.

**Recommendation 2: Highlight Functionality and Dissonance as Motivation**

The idea that dissonance is a fundamental motivating factor in people's lives (Elliot & Devine, 1994) is not always clear from the literature. Therefore, an effort needs to be made to accentuate this. First, dissonance discomfort should be presented as the “engine of cognition” (Gerard, 1992), serving as a regulatory mechanism, preventing disorganization, or chaos in people's thinking and actions (de Vries & Timmins, 2016). Second, with dissonance experienced most strongly whenever the self is threatened (Aronson, 1969; Steele, 1988) the idea of dissonance discomfort as a possible threat to the self needs to be underlined. Third, the action-based model (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009) needs to be introduced. This perspective posits that the motivation for reducing dissonance is first and foremost *the need for effective action*. It would be impossible to safely put one foot in front of the other if people were not alerted to inconsistencies in their movements. In this respect, dissonance is similar to pain. Like pain, dissonance is an adaptive warning signal that helps shape effective behavior and is present in all organisms (Harmon-Jones et al., 2017). Festinger (1957) described dissonance perception as equally

essential as the hunger drive! Gawronski (2012) suggests that this realization needs to be revived in how consistency theories are presented.

**Recommendation 3: Adopt Real-Life Examples and Active Debate**

While one could conclude from the above that a lot of theory needs to be presented to ensure that students understand CDT, we would advocate to focus first on how the core principle applies in everyday life. This can be done with the use of problem-based learning (PBL), which can be effective in psychology (Muehlenkamp et al., 2015) but is underused (Wiggins et al., 2016). By presenting scenarios as triggers and debating in teams, students can be led to identify important issues (Madson et al., 2020). This principle can be applied to developing an understanding of CDT (de Vries & Timmins, 2012). Importantly, as is suggested by Kropp and Stark (2018), a correct understanding of CDT can be created by including a step-by-step approach in which aspects are worked out with precision. It needs to be mentioned that in many situations, dissonance may be experienced without awareness of the inconsistencies that fuel it. Festinger (1957) addressed this, and studies have shown that dissonance discomfort and dissonance reduction may take place without conscious attention (Levy et al., 2018; Lieberman et al., 2001;). The implication is that students may require some time and effort to gain awareness of their own experiences and therefore that the discussion should take place in unhurried fashion.

**Two Pedagogical Primes to Introduce CDT**

In these scenario-based exercises, we have adopted the principle of *vigor over rigor* (Dunn, 2008) to generate lively activities and debate to demonstrate dissonance theory's universal relevance. The two exercises provide students with scenarios to analyze after which CDT is introduced. The exercises can be adapted to suit the needs of students and instructors. In classes of between 8 and 30 students, chairs can be put in circles to form several small teams (3–4 students), while in large lecture theaters students can be asked to do the exercises in pairs. No hard data on the effectiveness of the approach are available, yet, but anecdotally our students (undergraduate
and postgraduate, psychology majors and non-
majors) show more appreciation and superior
understanding of CDT, also in the long-term.
The descriptions below emphasize the essential
elements. Details for instructors are provided in
Supplemental Material.

**Exercise 1: Inner Conflict in Everyday Life**

In this exercise, an everyday life scenario is
presented that most students will have personal
experience of. This will facilitate sharing and
exploring. The choice of scenarios requires
caution. Situations (relationship breakup, vio-
lence, betrayal, etc.) that could trigger serious
personal dissonance should be avoided. For this
reason, we propose to use a common situation
with someone begging for money in the street.

The exercise unfolds in two parts. A first part (see Supplemental Material, Exercise 1a) relates to actual experiences of dissonance induction and reduction. The term *inner conflict* is used at this point. The emphasis is on highlighting what inner conflict feels like and what the conflicting beliefs/behaviors are (i.e., *I am a good person who helps people in need* vs. *I am not helping, so I am not good*). The subsequent focus on what could *make you feel better* allows dissonance reduction efforts to be debated. After this, the formal introduction of Festinger's (1957, Chapter 1) model should take place with cross-referencing of his terminology and common language (Exercise 1b). Following this, McGrath's (2017) article generates a template for detailed analysis of dissonance reduction mechanisms in Exercise 1c in the shape of a worked example. This is intended to highlight dissonance reduction through changing behavior or thinking, justifications, trivialization, adding consonant thoughts, attention shifts, denial (McGrath, 2017), or disengagement (Pillai, 2021). The best approach is to allow students to generate their answers and discuss the examples afterward (see Supplemental Material, for grids to fill with proposals for instructors). Additional scenarios could focus on dissonance experiences such as consumer regret (Powers & Jack, 2013).

**Exercise 2: Processing Consistency/
Inconsistency at Different Levels**

The second exercise (Supplemental Material,
Exercise 2) is a worked example of consistency/

inconsistency processing at different levels. This
allows for the introduction of the action-based
model (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009; Harmon-
Jones & Harmon-Jones, 2019) and Aronson's
(1969) self-related approach. The instructor pre-
sents examples of events involving inconsis-
tency at the level of actions, attitudes, and the
self. The task for the students is to identify the
inconsistency, resulting emotion, and disso-
nance reduction options. The emerging aware-
ness should be of different levels of dissonance
processing, their varied impact on the intensity of
dissonance discomfort and dissonance reduc-
tion. Moreover, the realization should occur
that dissonance is part of an adaptive regulatory
system that supports goal directed behavior and
prevents chaos in cognitions and behavior. The
overall outcome should be a comprehensive
appreciation of CDT and its application in the
real-world.

**Conclusion**

While a formal presentation of CDT is not
always well-understood, a lively problem-based
approach to learning may overcome this prob-
lem. In essence, we have expressed the view
that the dissonance mechanism needs to be
explored *before* the theory is presented. After
this, theory can be used as a template for further
exploration. This should help students to become
more insightful in applying this core aspect of
psychology to better understand themselves,
others, and the world we live in.

We invite colleagues to do the exercises with
their students and share their experiences. mul-
tiple choice questions can be requested from
the authors to test students' understanding (see
samples in Supplemental Material). These can
be used to compare an experimental group,
which receives the two exercises followed by
introduction of the theory, with a control
group, which only receives the theory in tradi-
tional lecture format. Evidently other research
formats can be considered. For instance, the
order of interactive exploration and lecture
can be varied, and the effectiveness of the ex-
ercises and different lecture approaches and
content can be compared. However, what we
hope more than anything is that this article
can be the start of a debate on the teaching
of CDT.
References

Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 4*, 2–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60075-1

Aronson, E. (1992). The return of the repressed: Dissonance theory makes a comeback. *Psychological Inquiry, 3*(4), 303–311. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0304_1

Aronson, E., & Aronson, J. (2018). *The social animal*. Worth Publishers, Macmillan Learning.

Barrows, H. S., & Tamblyn, R. M. (1980). *Problem-based learning: An approach to medical education* (Vol. 1). Springer.

Beauvois, J. L., & Joule, R. V. (1996). *A radical dissonance theory*. Taylor & Francis.

Bran, A., & Vaidis, D. C. (2020). On the characteristics of the cognitive dissonance state: Exploration within the pleasure arousal dominance model. *Psychologica Belgica, 60*(1), 86–102. https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.517

Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). *Explorations in cognitive dissonance*. Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1007/3711622-000

Carkenord, D. M., & Bullington, J. (1993). Bringing cognitive dissonance to the classroom. *Teaching of Psychology, 20*(1), 41–43. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top2001_9

Chabrak, N., & Craig, R. (2013). Student imaginings, cognitive dissonance and critical thinking. *Critical Perspectives on Accounting, 24*(2), 91–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2011.07.008

Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive dissonance: Where we've been and where we're going. *Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 32*(1), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 17*, 229–266. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60121-5

Cormack, S. (2014). Increasing interest in cognitive psychology using scenario-based assessment. *Psychology Teaching Review, 20*(2), 39–48. https://file.s.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1146629.pdf

Devine, P. G., Tauer, J. M., Barron, K. E., Elliot, A. J., Vance, K. M., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2019). Moving beyond attitude change in the study of dissonance-related processes: An update on the role of discomfort. In E. Harmon-Jones (Ed.), *Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology* (pp. 247–269). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-012

de Vries, J. M., & Timmins, F. (2012). Psychology teaching in nursing education: A review of and reflection on approaches, issues, and contemporary practice. *Nurse Education in Practice, 12*(6), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nepr.2012.03.007

de Vries, J., Byrne, M., & Kehoe, E. (2015). Cognitive dissonance induction in everyday life: An fMRI study. *Social Neuroscience, 10*(3), 268–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470919.2014.990990

de Vries, J., & Timmins, F. (2016). Care erosion in hospitals: Problems in reflective nursing practice and the role of cognitive dissonance. *Nurse Education Today, 38*, 5–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nedt.2015.12.007

de Vries, J. M. A., & Timmins, F. (2017). Recognising and responding to care erosion: Part 2. *Nursing Standard, 31*(52), 44–51. https://doi.org/10.7748/ns.2017.e10821

Dunn, D. S. (2008). Another view: In defense of vigor over rigor in classroom demonstrations. *Teaching of Psychology, 35*(4), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/00986280802374039

Elliot, A. J., & Devine, P. G. (1994). On the motivational nature of cognitive dissonance: Dissonance as psychological discomfort. *Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67*(3), 382–394. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.67.3.382

Festinger, L. (1957). *A theory of cognitive dissonance*. Row-Peterson. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. *Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 58*(2), 203–210. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0041593

Gawronski, B. (2012). Back to the future of dissonance theory: Cognitive consistency as a core motive. *Social Cognition, 30*(6), 652–668. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2012.30.6.652

Gerard, H. B. (1992). Dissonance theory: A cognitive psychology with an engine. *Psychological Inquiry, 3*(4), 323–327. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli0304_6

Gorski, P. C. (2009). Cognitive dissonance as a strategy in social justice teaching. *Multicultural Education, 17*(1), 54–57. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ871366.pdf

Harmon-Jones, C., Haslam, N., & Bastian, B. (2017). Dissonance reduction in nonhuman animals: Implications for cognitive dissonance theory. *Animal Sentience, 1*(12), Article 4. https://doi.org/10.5129/12377-7478.1191

Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2009). Action-based model of dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 41*, 119–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)00403-6

Harmon-Jones, E., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2019). Understanding the motivation underlying dissonance effects: The action-based model. In E. Harmon-Jones
(Ed.), *Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a pivotal theory in psychology* (pp. 63–89). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-004

Klopp, E., & Stark, R. (2018). Learning scientific explanations by means of worked examples—Promoting psychology students’ explanation competence. *Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17*(2), 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725718757171

Levy, N., Harmon-Jones, C., & Harmon-Jones, E. (2018). Dissonance and discomfort: Does a simple cognitive inconsistency evoke a negative affective state? *Motivation Science, 4*(2), 95–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000079

Lieberman, M. D., Ochsner, K. N., Gilbert, D. T., & Schacter, D. L. (2001). Do amnesics exhibit cognitive dissonance reduction? The role of explicit memory and attention in attitude change. *Psychological Science, 12*(2), 135–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00323

Madson, L., Zaikman, Y., & Hughes, J. S. (2020). Psychology teachers should try team-based learning: Evidence, concerns, and recommendations. *Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6*(1), 53–68. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000166

Maurer, T. W. (2006). Cognitive dissonance or revenge? Student grades and course evaluations. *Teaching of Psychology, 33*(3), 176–179. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328023top3303_4

McFalls, E. L., & Cobb-Roberts, D. (2001). Reducing resistance to diversity through cognitive dissonance instruction: Implications for teacher education. *Journal of Teacher Education, 52*(2), 164–172. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487101052002007

McGrath, A. (2017). Dealing with dissonance: A review of cognitive dissonance reduction. *Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11*(12), Article e12362. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12362

McGrath, A. (2020). Bringing cognitive dissonance theory into the scholarship of teaching and learning: Topics and questions in need of investigation. *Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 6*(1), 84–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000168

Metin, I., & Camgoz, S. M. (2011). The advances in the history of cognitive dissonance theory. *International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1*(6), 131–136. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Selin-Camgoz/publication/268351526_The_Adva nces_in_the_History_of_Cognitive_Dissonance_The ory/links/55ce503108ae6a8813849df7/The-Adva nces-in-the-History-of-Cognitive-Dissonance-The ory.pdf

Muehlenkamp, J. J., Weiss, N., & Hansen, M. (2015). Problem-based learning for introductory psychology: Preliminary supporting evidence. *Scholarship*

of Teaching and Learning in Psychology, 1(2), 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000027

Neuhaus, M. (2021). *Cognitive Dissonance Theory: An example & 4 ways to address it*. Positive Psychology: Theory and books. https://positivepsychology.com/cognitive-dissonance-theory/

Pillai, A. V. (2021). Customer happiness: The role of cognitive dissonance and customer experience. In A. V. Pillai (Ed.), *Consumer happiness: Multiple perspectives* (pp. 117–125). Springer.

Powers, T. L., & Jack, E. P. (2013). The influence of cognitive dissonance on retail product returns. *Psychology and Marketing, 30*(8), 724–735. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.20640

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self. *Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 21*, 261–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60229-4

Stephens, J. M. (2017). How to cheat and not feel guilty: Cognitive dissonance and its amelioration in the domain of academic dishonesty. *Theory Into Practice, 56*(2), 111–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2017.1283571

Stone, J. (1999). What exactly have I done? The role of self-attribute accessibility in dissonance. In E. Harmon-Jones & J. Mills (Eds.), *Cognitive dissonance: Progress on a pivotal theory in social psychology* (pp. 175–200). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/10318-008

Tryon, W. W., & Misurell, J. R. (2008). Dissonance induction and reduction: A possible principle and connectionist mechanism for why therapies are effective. *Clinical Psychology Review, 28*(8), 1297–1309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.06.003

Vaidis, D., & Bran, A. (2018). Some prior considerations about dissonance to understand its reduction: Comment on McGrath (2017). *Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 12*(92), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12411

Weiten, W. (2021). *Psychology: Themes and variations* (11th ed.). Cengage Learning.

Wiggins, S., Chiriac, E. H., Abbad, G. L., Pauli, R., & Worrell, M. (2016). Ask not only ‘what can problem-based learning do for psychology?’ but ‘what can psychology do for problem-based learning?’ A review of the relevance of problem-based learning for psychology teaching and research. *Psychology Learning & Teaching, 15*(2), 136–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725716643270

Received June 25, 2022

Revision received October 17, 2022

Accepted October 22, 2022