Cognitive Dissonance and Consonance:
the Basics for Former Mormons by Luna Lindsey
Cognitive dissonance/consonance theory is basic to understanding human thought
and behaviour. It describes how our beliefs interact with each other, our
resistance to new beliefs, and what dynamics are involved when we do change our
beliefs. We experience cognitive dissonance and consonance on a day to day bases
as we process all the new information in our mental “inbox”. It not only applies
to our spiritual and political beliefs, but also what products we choose to
purchase, how we raise our children, where we arrange our furniture, and all
other decisions we make both large and small.
Cognitive dissonance is not, in and of itself, a thought
reform method. But because it is so central to how we think and make decisions,
it becomes key to understanding manipulative techniques.
A cognition is a belief, concept, behaviour, memory,
attitude, or emotion. Our minds are filled with millions of cognitions. Most of
them have no relationship to each other and cannot be correlated — for instance,
last years Super Bowl scores have nothing to do with worries over the rising
price of gas. But many cognitions are connected, and of these, some will
reaffirm each other (consonance) or conflict with one another (dissonance).
For example, knowing a statistic about the number of
fatal car accidents would be consonant with a belief in using seat belts.
Hearing a story about a child who died because he was wearing a seat belt would
be dissonant, as would having a claustrophobic fear of being constrained.
According to theory, states of dissonance will leave us
uncomfortable. Like thirst or hunger we will have an urge to bring a return to
consonance. There are many ways to resolve dissonance: 1) Change your cognitions
(beliefs, attitudes, behaviour), 2) Add new cognitions to explain or balance the
conflict, 3) Alter the importance of the cognitions.
1. Changing Cognitions
a. One way to decrease consonance is to change existing
beliefs, attitudes, behaviours, or even memories. In the face of new facts, we
may change our minds. Or in the face of social pressure, we may begin to favour
something we had distaste for previously.
b. Or we can reject the new information. If it confronts
our fast-held beliefs, we may be prone to believe the bearer of information
(activist, author, speaker) is a liar, is a member of an opposing group, has
ulterior motives, or is somehow against our principles. Sometimes it is easier
to reject facts out of hand than it is to change our minds.
2. Add New Cognitions
a. We can add new concepts, ideas, or behaviours to
explain or justify conflicts, to transform nonsense into sense. If we are a
biblical inerrantist, we may be inclined to believe the parting of the Red Sea
really happened. If this dissonates with the improbability that such a thing
could happen in a scientific, rational world, then we may add the idea that the
sea was parted by a strong wind, or that the Israelites actually crossed the
shallow Reed Sea.
b. Behaviours are also cognitions, so in the face of
dissonance we may exaggerate, increase, or add new behaviours which support our
beliefs. A verbally abusive man may find his actions in conflict with his belief
that he is a good person, so he may make a large donation to charity to relieve
his guilt.
c. Alternately, we may find support in a group of friends
who can help bolster our weakened beliefs. If we can surround ourselves with
people of similar cognitions, this will create a loud consonance to drown out
the dissonance.
3. Alter Importance
a. Lower the importance. When we can’t get what we want,
it is often easier to say, “Fine, whatever, I didn’t really want it anyway.” By
this change in attitude, we make the dissonant cognition less important than it
once was. If we discover our favoured candidate for President voted against our
favourite congressional bill, we may dismiss the importance of that bill, even
to the point of forgetting about it, to continue supporting the candidate —
dissonance-free.
b. Increase the importance of consonant cognitions. This
will drown out the discomfort of dissonance. We may still be disappointed about
that bill, but we can instead focus on our candidate’s endearing charm and
contributions to charity.
Dissonance resolution will usually take the path of least
resistance. Changing, adding, or altering importance of cognitions may cause
pain, loss, shame, disorientation, or fear. Which of these we choose will
usually be that which causes the least discomfort.
Habits and the weight of other consonant cognitions also
create resistance to change. If a habitual behaviour goes against a belief, it
may be hard to alter… unless the belief is deeply held and supported by a large
number of other cognitions. One dissonance may threaten to topple thousands of
dependent consonants, like a keystone or lynch pin. We’re not as likely to
change a belief which would cause so much mental trouble, especially when it’s
easier to reject the threat or add a few rationalizing beliefs.
Commonly people avoid dissonance by avoiding sources of
new information all together.
Dissonance is not always resolved. Minor dissonances of
low importance may continue for years. Or the addition of cognitions to justify
conflicts can offer powerful damage control. Often people hold hundreds of
conflicting views without ever realizing it. Orwell called this “double-think”,
the ability to self-contradict without any apparent discomfort — “Freedom is
Slavery”, “War is Peace”, “Ignorance is Strength”. It would be important to note
that Orwell’s fictional characters in 1984 had been brainwashed into performing
these feats of mental gymnastics.
Some cognitions can reverse the expected effects of new
information. A cult may plant beliefs to counter potential opposition. For
instance, if a person is being persecuted, they would normally be intimidated or
humiliated into changing beliefs. But if members of a group hold a strong belief
that Satan attacks truth, and seeks to lead believers astray through the
ridicule of non-believers, persecution becomes a confirmation that will actually
bolster faith. This technique of dissonance reversal is so powerful, people will
even seek contradictory cognitions — in this example, people will perceive
persecution where there is none.
Experiments
There are two famous experiments that show cognitive
dissonance in action.
In the first, students were asked individually to perform
a futile repetitious task for several hours. Upon finishing, each student was
asked to explain their task to the next “student” (who was actually one of the
researchers). They were instructed to introduce the task in positive terms; that
it was fun, interesting, and exciting. One group of students was paid $1 to
extol the virtues of the job, while another group was paid $20. A third group
was not asked to talk to anyone for any price.
Afterward, all the students were asked to evaluate the
experiment on how enjoyable it was. Those who were paid $1 to “market” the task
said they enjoyed it much more than those who had been paid $20 or who had not
been asked to talk to anyone.
There are three cognitions interacting in this
experiment: 1) The enjoyability of the task, 2) The behaviour of talking to
another student about the task, 3) Justification through money.
Nearly everyone hated the task while performing it. Those
who were not asked to lie to other students reflected this feeling on the
follow-up survey. Similarly, the $20 group also stated they did not enjoy
themselves. They could justify the act of lying — they were getting paid.
Selling out is good enough justification to tell a white lie for the sake of
research, right?
However, those who were paid $1 were in a bit of a bind.
They had just lied for practically nothing. For them, the path of least
resistance involved a slight modification to their cognition — to convince
themselves they did indeed enjoy the task.
The second famous experiment/observation involved a
particular form of cognitive dissonance: the belief-disconfirmation paradigm. In
order to meet the criteria of this type of dissonance:
The cognition(s) must be deeply held and related to
action — the believer must act on his beliefs.
There must be commitment on the part of the believer and
actions which are irreversible. The more committed the action, the deeper the
belief.
The beliefs must be specific, detailed, and related to
reality, i.e. falsifiable/disprovable.
Irrefutable counter-evidence must be introduced and
understood by the believer.
The believer must have social ties to other believers. He
cannot be isolated.
(When Prophecy Fails, p 4)
In the observed case, a UFO cult had predicted the end of
the world on a specific date. Members of the group had made public statements,
quit jobs or gotten fired, alienated relatives, moved, had no future plans for
after the disaster date, and a few minor activities (like removing metal from
their clothing). These believers had acted on their beliefs in irreversible
ways. Their beliefs were specific and related to a real event. The date would
come around, and the world would then know if they were right — or wrong.
Prior to the disconfirmation of their beliefs, this group
had been primarily secretive, only allowing a few select members to join, or
even to ask questions.
As the day of disaster grew nearer, several smaller
predictions failed to materialize. These were rationalized away, but with each
disconfirmation, the group became more public. When the UFOs failed to appear
and the predicted flood failed to occur, the group determined (through prophecy)
that the world had been saved because of their goodness and effort. Suddenly
they became very public, inviting in reporters and visitors alike. They began to
argue in earnest to convince others of their belief system, something they had
not previously done. If they could convince others that they were correct, then
they could feel that they were indeed right all along.
This belief-disconfirmation paradigm describes a type of
cognitive dissonance that results in proselytizing. If others believe too, then
you’re not really crazy after all. It is not unlike telling a joke where no one
laughs, and feeling the urge to say, “Get it?!”
Most beliefs are not so concrete, so it is usually
easiest to add a rationalizing cognition (as this group also did), to alter the
importance of the belief, refute the new information, or change beliefs.
Fictional Mormon Case Studies
Lets take a look at a few stories in the Mormon context.
These specific events did not occur, but these types of situations frequently
happen to Mormons everywhere.
Sister Warren
Sister Warren is a perfect TBM wife to a Bishop and
mother to six children. She was released as Relief Society President the
previous year. While at the country fair, she sees an anti-Mormon booth. Thought
she walks the other way, she can’t miss a large sign which reads, “Joseph Smith
married a 14 year old girl!” She believes Joseph Smith is a beloved and
righteous prophet, but she also believes it is sinful and vile for a grown man
to marry a teenager — she has three teenage daughters of her own. This causes
quite a lot of dissonance. Sister Warren immediately dismisses the anti-Mormons
as hateful liars who are merely out to destroy the church. She changes
cognitions — in this case, she labels the new information as a lie.
Brother Porter
Brother Porter is an Elder’s Quorum President. A few
weeks ago, his wife came to him in distress about something she had read on the
internet. At first he resisted, but he has now looked over the websites and
learned a few things about Church history that trouble him. He had never heard
these things taught in Church, and in fact on several points, the Church has
published the opposite. Brother Porter can come to no other conclusion than that
the Church has deceived him. After much troubling thought and heart-searching,
he and his wife put in their resignations one year later. The Porters have
changed cognitions.
Brother Pell
Brother Pell is a science teacher at a local college. He
had been raised to believe in the literal Genesis account of creation. While at
college, his Bishop — also his Biology teacher — had laid out all the evidence
of evolution. Brother Pell quickly became convinced that life on earth had
evolved. For a time, this dissonance threatened to crumble all his beliefs in
Mormonism, on the assumption that evolutionism contradicted Genesis. But he
quickly added a new set of beliefs — that God could well have used evolution to
create life on earth. “Days” could mean “time periods”, and abbreviated language
could explain the simplified description. Brother Pell added cognitions to
resolve his dissonance.
Sister Brooks
Sister Brooks has been semi-active for several years,
since her husband quit going to Church. Sometimes she takes her children to
Church. She still reads the scriptures and still believes in the Gospel. One day
a friend, Sister DuPont, calls her in tears. Sister DuPont has had frequent
marital troubles, but for the most part has remained silent regarding details.
Today she is forthcoming. Her husband has been beating her and her children for
the last six months. The night before, Brother DuPont, a member of the
bishopric, had given her youngest son a black eye. Sister DuPont had gone to the
Bishop for help, but the Bishop believed Brother DuPont was a righteous man
incapable of such actions, and that Sister DuPont was making up lies. When
Sister DuPont complained that she had been repeatedly raped, the Bishop laughed
and said no married woman could be raped by her husband. She needed to give her
husband more Christlike love and understanding, and support him in his difficult
calling.
At the other end of the line, Sister Brooks becomes
confused, and at the end of the call quips, “I don’t think your husband would do
such a thing!” and hangs up. Sister Brooks increases her activity, attending
every meeting faithfully with her children. She tries to avoid Sister DuPont
whenever possible.
Sister Brooks has added cognitions of behaviour and
social support by attending more meetings. The importance of her beliefs
outweigh her friendship with Sister DuPont, so she has cut off association to
eliminate the dissonant memory of the phone call.
Elder Roberts
Elder Roberts is on a mission. He went to gain a
testimony after several years of teenage uncertainty. Through converting others
to the Gospel, he has finally gained a firm knowledge the Church is true.
While proselytizing one day, an older man invites the missionaries in. The man has much to say on the topic of Mormonism. His methods are subtle, but he slowly introduces dissonance by talking about conflicts between the Bible and the Book of Mormon. As the contradictory scriptures mount, Elder Roberts begins to be daunted. When they leave, and his companion shrugs it off. “The Bible wasn’t translated correctly anyway, right?
Those things don’t matter.” Elder Roberts begins to
relax. “Besides,” says his companion, “The Lord will reveal everything in due
time.” Elder Roberts smiles. With the help of his companion, he has reduced the
importance of scriptural conflicts.
Conclusion – Cognitive Awareness
With an awareness of how cognition functions, one can
choose beneficial beliefs that make use of the above information. For instance,
I have chosen to make truth and reality an important foundation of my beliefs. I
measure all other cognitions as to whether they match with what is real. I value
making my words and actions reflect reality.
The effect of this belief is that I am less resistant to
change and more open to learning. I am also more skeptical, less apt to accept
new ideas without first researching the facts and opposing viewpoints. I want to
know what really is truth, not what someone claims is truth.
If we can become aware of our cognitions and how they affect our behaviour, we gain control of our lives. We can choose cognitions that benefit us, rather than automatically reacting to how we’ve been programmed.