Dissonance between. Cognitive dissonance - what is it in simple words? Limits on the increase in dissonance

Cognitive dissonance theory

The theory of cognitive dissonance (from the English cognition - knowledge, dissonance - inconsistency) is a socio-psychological theory created by the American psychologist L. Festinger, in which logically contradictory knowledge about the same subject is assigned the status of motivation, designed to ensure the elimination of what arises when faced with contradictions of feelings of discomfort due to changes in existing knowledge or social attitudes. In the theory of cognitive dissonance, it is believed that there is a body of knowledge about objects and people, called the cognitive system, which can have varying degrees of complexity, coherence and interconnectedness. Moreover, the complexity of a cognitive system depends on the amount and variety of knowledge included in it.

The term cognitive dissonance refers to any discrepancy between cognitions (that is, between any knowledge, opinions or beliefs related to the environment, someone or someone's behavior). The appearance of dissonance, being psychologically uncomfortable, forces a person to try to reduce it and achieve consonance (correspondence of cognitions). In addition, in the presence of dissonance, a person actively avoids situations and information that could lead to its increase.

Speaking about Leon Festinger's theory of dissonance, it is customary to give the example of a smoker: a person smokes, but at the same time he knows that smoking is harmful. He experiences cognitive dissonance, which can be overcome in three ways:

1. Change your behavior, that is, quit smoking;

2. Change knowledge, that is, convince yourself that all discussions about the dangers of smoking at least exaggerate the danger, or are even completely unreliable;

3. Ignore information about the dangers of smoking.

In modern psychology, the theory of cognitive dissonance is often used to explain a person’s actions and actions in various social situations. Emotions are considered as the main motive for corresponding actions and deeds. The underlying cognitive factors are given a much greater role in determining human behavior than organic changes.

The dominant cognitivist orientation of modern psychological research has led to the fact that conscious assessments that a person gives to a situation are also considered as emotional factors. It is believed that such assessments directly influence the nature of the emotional experience.

Cognitive dissonance according to Festinger

2.1 General provisions

Cognition is interpreted by Festinger quite broadly: cognition is any knowledge, opinion or belief concerning the environment, oneself or one’s own behavior. Dissonance is experienced by the individual as a state of discomfort. She strives to get rid of it and restore internal cognitive harmony. And it is this desire that is a powerful motivating factor in human behavior and attitude towards the world.

A state of dissonance between cognitions X and Y occurs when cognition X does not imply Y. A state of consonance between X and Y, on the other hand, exists when X implies Y. A person strives for internal consistency, a state of consonance. For example, a person prone to obesity decided to go on a diet (cognition X), but cannot deny himself his favorite chocolate (cognition Y). A person trying to lose weight should not eat chocolate. There is dissonance. Its occurrence motivates a person to reduce, remove, and reduce dissonance. To do this, according to Festinger, a person has three main ways: change one of the cognitions (in this case, stop eating chocolate or stop dieting); reduce the significance of the cognitions included in the dissonant relationship (decide that being overweight is not such a big sin or that chocolate does not cause significant weight gain); add a new cognition (for example, that although chocolate increases weight, it has a beneficial effect on mental activity).

Cognitive dissonance motivates, requires its reduction, leads to a change in attitudes, and ultimately to a change in behavior. Let's consider the two most well-known effects associated with the emergence and removal of cognitive dissonance. One of them arises in a situation of behavior that contradicts a person’s evaluative attitude towards something (attitude). If a person voluntarily (without coercion) agrees to do something that is somewhat inconsistent with his beliefs, opinion, and if this behavior does not have sufficient external justification (say, reward), then in the future beliefs and opinions change towards greater compliance with the behavior. If, for example, a person agreed to behavior that is somewhat contrary to his moral guidelines, then the consequence of this will be dissonance between knowledge about behavior and moral guidelines, and in the future the latter will change in the direction of lowering morality.

Another well-studied effect found in cognitive dissonance research is dissonance after a difficult decision. A difficult decision is the case when the alternative options from which a choice must be made are close in attractiveness. In such cases, as a rule, after making a decision, after the choice is made, a person experiences cognitive dissonance, which is the result of the following contradictions: on the one hand, there are negative features in the chosen option, and on the other hand, there is something positive in the rejected option . What is accepted is partly bad, but it is accepted. What is rejected is partly good, but it is rejected.

Experimental studies of the consequences of a difficult decision have shown that after making such a decision (over time), the subjective attractiveness of the chosen option increases and the subjective attractiveness of the rejected one decreases. A person, thus, gets rid of cognitive dissonance: he convinces himself that what he chose is not just slightly better than the rejected one, but much better; he, as it were, expands alternative options: the chosen one pulls up the attractiveness scale, the rejected one pulls down . Based on this, we can assume that difficult decisions increase the likelihood of behavior consistent with the chosen option. For example, if a person was tormented for a long time by choosing between cars “A” and “B”, and in the end preferred “B”, then in the future the probability of choosing cars of type “B” will be higher than before the purchase, since the relative attractiveness of the latter will increase.

An experimental study by one of Festinger's students - Brehm showed that after making a difficult decision, the subjective attractiveness of the chosen option increases and the subjective attractiveness of the rejected option decreases. The experiment was structured as follows. The subjects (women) were asked to rate the attractiveness of various household items such as a stopwatch, radio, table lamp, etc. After this, the control group was given one of the items as a gift. The first experimental group (difficult decision group) was given a choice between objects that were similar in attractiveness; the second (easy decision group) was given the opportunity to choose an object from two that differed greatly in attractiveness. Subjects in all three groups were then asked to rate the objects again based on their attractiveness. The results showed that subjects in the experimental groups (those who had the right to choose) changed their assessments of the attractiveness of the objects that were given to them to choose from: compared to the initial assessments, the rejected object was perceived as relatively less attractive, and the chosen one was perceived as more attractive. In other words, the attractiveness of the rejected option has decreased, while the attractiveness of the chosen one has increased. Moreover, the change in attractiveness ratings was more significant in the case of a difficult decision.

Festinger explains the described fact as follows. After making a difficult decision, a person experiences emotional discomfort, which is caused by the fact that, on the one hand, the chosen option has negative features, and on the other hand, the rejected option has something positive: what was accepted is partly bad, but it is accepted; what is rejected is partially good, but it is rejected. In an effort to get rid of the experienced contradiction, a person convinces himself that what he chose is not just slightly better than the rejected one, but much better; he, as it were, expands alternative options: the chosen one pulls up the scale of attractiveness, the rejected one down. The consequence of this is changes in value judgments regarding the attractiveness of alternative behavior options.

Dissonance and consonance

On August 27, 1957, Leon Festinger's book, The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, was published.

Suffice it to say that the concept of a humanist leader is purely speculative, and the theory of cognitive dissonance is built on experimental data and has been repeatedly confirmed by them. Here, however, one suspicion arises: it seems that the domestic reader loves reasoning more than experiments. At least, a quick survey of several dozen young colleagues showed that almost everyone is familiar with Maslow’s concept, at least in its abstract presentation, while few have read Festinger, and many have not even heard of him to this day. Turning over the pages of the historical and psychological calendar at the end of summer, we will try to fill this gap at least partially.

A student of Levin, Festinger in his research relied on the principle of balance, using it in the analysis of human perception of the world. He himself begins the presentation of his theory with the following reasoning: it has been noticed that people strive for some consistency as a desired internal state. If a contradiction arises between what a person knows and what he does, then he seeks to somehow explain this contradiction and, most likely, present it as non-contradiction in order to again achieve a state of internal cognitive consistency.

Next, Festinger suggests replacing the term “contradiction” with “dissonance” and “coherence” with “consonance”, since this pair of terms seems more neutral to him, and now formulate the main provisions of the theory. It can be stated in three main points:

a) dissonance may arise between cognitive elements;

b) the existence of dissonance causes a desire to reduce it or prevent its growth;

c) the manifestation of this desire includes: either a change in behavior, or a change in knowledge, or a cautious, selective attitude to new information.

As an illustration, the now familiar example of a smoker is given: a person smokes, but at the same time knows that smoking is harmful; he experiences dissonance, from which there are three ways to get out:

a) change behavior, that is, quit smoking;

b) change knowledge, in this case - convince yourself that all discussions about the dangers of smoking at least exaggerate the danger, and are even completely unreliable;

c) carefully perceive new information about the dangers of smoking, that is, simply ignore it.

Despite the complicated name “cognitive dissonance,” many people encounter it in everyday life. Cognitive means a thought process, and dissonance is a disagreement between something. The founder of cognitive dissonance is Festinger, who put forward his theories and concepts. Using examples, it becomes clear what cognitive dissonance is.

In every person's life, situations arise when a decision needs to be made. If a person cannot quickly make a decision, this often indicates cognitive dissonance, that is, the inability to choose between two or even more options for solving a situation. Depending on how quickly a person chooses what he will sacrifice and what he will follow, making a decision will take one or another time.

Typically, cognitive dissonance occurs in situations where a person is faced with a choice: follow his own desires and impulses or pay attention to public opinion, legal norms, and morality? For example, cognitive dissonance will arise in a situation when a person finds out about his significant other’s betrayal. On the one hand, you want to punch everyone in the face, on the other hand, you need to remember that such actions will lead to liability before the law.

Cognitive dissonance manifests itself in the fact that a person is forced to limit himself in some way, since what is desired does not always coincide with what is possible. For example, a girl wants to live luxuriously and carefree, which is why she begins to look for a rich man. And to a society that is indignant about her desires, she begins to tell various excuses for her behavior: “I lived poorly,” “I wish a better life for my children,” etc.

Cognitive dissonance is when a person is faced with different options for solving one problem, and all of them are equivalent and equally important. And a person has to choose not between his desires, but between goals and public opinion, emotional impulses and the norms of the law, that is, between “I want” and “I must.” A striking example of such dissonance can be a child’s reluctance to learn. On the one hand, he needs to study, on the other, he does not want to waste time studying uninteresting topics.

And since a person does not always manage to follow the lead of public opinion, he is forced to look for various excuses. People will start asking why he didn’t listen to them! And he must have good reasons for disobedience.

The same thing happens in a situation when a person follows the lead of society, which contradicts his personal desires. For example, a guy, instead of punishing his offender with his fists, simply turns around and leaves, as his parents taught him. In order to calm himself down and justify his action, which may seem like weakness to a guy, he begins to look for good reasons, like, “that’s what my parents taught me,” “I showed intelligence,” etc.

Cognitive dissonance also manifests itself when an important decision needs to be made, but the person is overcome by strong doubts. Even when he has made a decision, a person continues to doubt and go through other options for solving the situation in his head. For example, a woman decided to forgive her husband for his misconduct, but in the following days she continues to doubt whether this should have been done and how much it corresponds to her desires.

What is cognitive dissonance?

Cognitive dissonance refers to a psychological help site as a negative condition in which one feels discomfort due to conflicting knowledge, worldviews, teachings, ideas, values, goals, behavioral attitudes and beliefs. Experience and what a person must do, habits and what is necessary, personal and social often come into conflict.

Cognitive dissonance is a confrontation of two cognitions that are not equally significant for the person himself, but are equally possible when solving a certain issue. And a person faces a choice, for example, between satisfying physical desires or moral values.

In order to overcome cognitive dissonance, a person makes a choice between experience and actions, and then begins to find a rational grain in what he chose in order to explain to himself and the people around him his choice, which may seem wrong to someone. In this way, a person achieves internal balance and smoothness. This theory is put forward by the founder Leon Festinger, who noted that the most comfortable state for a person is cognitive coherence. And if an individual chooses one thing, then in order to achieve internal harmony he begins to look for justification for his own choice.

Causes of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance occurs for the following reasons:

1. The discrepancy between personal beliefs and the attitudes of society or the group in which the person is located.
2. Inconsistency between the concepts and ideas with which a person operates.
3. Going against social norms and ethnic rules, especially if they do not conform to the law or personal desires.
4. The discrepancy between the experience that a person has and the information that he receives in new conditions. In other words, previous experience does not help in solving a new situation that is similar to the previous one.

Each person has knowledge and experience that he gains as he lives. However, new situations may indicate that his existing beliefs are not at all true or do not always work. As a person is forced to solve problems, he begins to choose the best from the worst. And in order to achieve internal balance, he finds various justifications for his choice.

Festinger tried to explain the nature of cognitive dissonance, as well as ways to eliminate it. And here motivation stands out, which dictates to a person what choice he will make. The strongest motivation tells a person which idea should be abandoned in order to implement another. And then, in order to maintain balance in the new path, a person must justify his action.

Cognitive dissonance theory

Cognitive dissonance has been known since ancient times, since a person has always been faced with the need to choose between personal desires and the norms of social life. Either a person will try to be a good citizen, or he will achieve success, which involves the presence of selfishness and stubbornness - qualities that are not acceptable in society.

Cognitive dissonance is natural for any person who cannot know everything about the world around him. The property of the brain is to remember what situations occurred and what decisions were made, actions were performed, and what was ultimately obtained. If a person has achieved failure, then he draws certain conclusions, saying, “you shouldn’t do this so as not to get into trouble again.” However, in a typical situation, a person acts differently and again faces failure, and as a result of analysis it turns out that he should have acted as he did in the previous situation.

Cognitive dissonance is the need to find a solution to one situation among the many options that a person has based on his experience, as well as those offered by society, individuals and even the law. Here a person must sometimes choose among options that do not correspond to his desires and usual actions.

Because cognitive dissonance forces a person to give up something, he makes excuses. And anything can be used here: “I did the right thing, no matter what!”, “This is my life. I live the way I want!”, “I did the wrong thing last time,” “I have the right to make a mistake,” etc. Psychologists identify the following ways to reduce dissonance:

1. Transformation of one cognition, that is, convincing oneself of the opposite.
2. Changing your own behavior.
3. Filtering the information that comes in.
4. See mistakes and change your decision, act according to it.

A way to reduce cognitive dissonance after a decision has been made may be for the person to begin to extol the significance of the decision he made and downplay all other options that were offered in eliminating the problem.

Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance

Leon Festinger put forward the following theories of cognitive dissonance:

• The individual will try to get rid of cognitive dissonance when it arises.
• A person will avoid all situations that will introduce him to cognitive dissonance.

In the process of cognitive dissonance, when the connection between ideas is lost or there is no consistency between actions and thoughts, the intellect and the person’s reaction to those stimuli that are present in the situation are involved.

Cognitive dissonance can manifest itself in the fact that a person begins to repent or doubt a decision made. This may happen over time. The action has already been completed. The result has been achieved, but it does not satisfy the desires of the person himself. And over time, he begins to repent, experience remorse, and subsequently make different decisions in similar situations.

Examples of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance happens to many people, and there are many situations that arise. Examples could be:

1. Admission of excellent and poor students. Since each student is required to behave in a certain way (an excellent student must study well, and a poor student must study poorly), cognitive dissonance occurs when an excellent student begins to study with bad marks, and a poor student with fives.
2. Bad habits. Sooner or later, everyone begins to understand that habits are harmful to health. And here a person faces a choice: continue to harm himself or get rid of the habit.
3. Should I give alms? If you see a homeless person on the street, you are faced with a choice: to give or not to give? It all depends on your inner beliefs and social principles.
4. The desire to lose weight. On the one hand, the girl wants to lose weight. However, on the other hand, she may experience a strong desire to eat something tasty.

Since cognitive dissonance has arisen and will arise in the life of any person, various ways to avoid it are proposed:

• Acceptance of the situation, that is, begin to treat it as acceptable.
• A positive attitude, that is, seeing the positive aspects in a situation.
• Avoiding information that contradicts your views and experiences.

Bottom line

Man lives in a diverse world that cannot be explained from only one side. To avoid cognitive dissonance, you need to learn to see all the diversity and understand that in situations you can act badly, selfishly, and incorrectly, which is also normal if it gives positive results.

Each person has a unique internal “device”, a kind of censor that helps determine the negative and positive aspects of everyday life. People call it "conscience." And everyone in their life has encountered moments (situations) that need to be resolved, going against existing rules and instilled norms of behavior, while feeling internal discomfort.

Ignoring remorse, people commit unusual actions, feeling that this is the only correct decision. At the same time, experiencing a deep contradiction. This is the answer to the question of what cognitive dissonance is, the definition of which from Latin means “cognition.”

Cognitive dissonance: internal discomfort of the individual

Psychologists talk about this syndrome as a certain mental state that occurs with the discomfort of awareness of one’s own “I”. This situation is accompanied by an imbalance (inconsistency) in the human consciousness of a number of contradictory concepts or ideas.

Despite such a complex definition, every person has encountered cognitive dissonance in their life. Sometimes this feeling comes through the fault of the individual himself, but more often the syndrome develops for independent reasons.

Founders of the theory

The author of the theory of cognitive dissonance is the American psychologist Fritz Heider. And the full development and description of the syndrome belongs to another psychologist from the USA - Leon Festinger. He became the founder of cognitive psychology, which was published in 1957.

The impetus for the creation of the theory of cognitive dissonance was the widespread spread of all kinds of rumors after the earthquake in India in 1934. Residents of regions not affected by the tremors began to spread rumors that new, stronger underground tremors should be expected, threatening other areas. These pessimistic and completely unfounded forecasts spread throughout the country.

Festinger, studying and trying to explain the widespread belief in rumors, made an original conclusion: “People unconsciously strive for internal harmony, a balance between personal behavioral motives and information received from outside.”

In other words, residents fanned rumors and tried to justify their internal fear of the threat of a new earthquake in order to explain their own irrational state.

Theoretical principles

In the theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger used the main postulates of Gestalt psychology.

Gestalt psychology is a branch of psychology that originated in Germany.XX century. Its representatives argued that human perception of the world does not depend only on the total sum of various sensations, and an individual personality is not described through individual properties. In human consciousness, all parts are organized into a single whole (gestalt).

The main goals of Gestalt psychology are the development of conscious thinking of an individual, the final step of which is acceptance and understanding of oneself as an individual. According to adherents of this direction, a person strives for complete harmony of ideas about himself, the opinions of others and any existing knowledge.

The emerging discrepancy between such ideas is perceived by the individual as something very unpleasant that should be smoothed out as much as possible. When a person faces internal contradictions, he develops a specific motivation that changes his thinking:

• a person completely revises one of his usual ideas;
• or looks for a replacement of concepts as new information that is closest to the event that provoked internal discomfort.

The term “cognitive dissonance” was introduced into widespread use in Russia by Viktor Pelevin. The famous author in his books described cognitive dissonance in simple words accessible to the uninitiated person.

This concept is now used in everyday life, where one can get by with the expression: “I am puzzled.” More often, internal conflicts that fit into the definition of the syndrome arise against the background of emotional, moral or religious inconsistency.

System hypotheses

In developing the theory of cognitive dissonance, Festinger used two main hypotheses:

1. A person, faced with a psychological internal discrepancy, will try to overcome the discomfort by any means.
2. By adopting the first hypothesis, a person unconsciously creates a second one. It says that a person, after “getting acquainted” with cognitive dissonance, will try in every possible way to avoid repeating such situations.

That is, cognitive dissonance determines a person’s further behavior. It belongs to the category of motivational. Based on this, we can draw a conclusion about the essence of the theory.

The essence of cognitive dissonance

Since this syndrome is motivational, it has a direct impact on the development of the individual. This state becomes decisive in a person’s behavioral reactions, influencing his life position, beliefs and views.

How exactly a person will react when faced with cognitive dissonance depends on his life experience, character, and the presence of similar events in the past. A person may experience a feeling of remorse after committing a certain act. Moreover, remorse does not occur immediately, but after a period of time, forcing a person to look for justification for actions, softening the feeling of guilt.

The problem of cognitive dissonance lies in the following fact. A person, trying to resolve internal discomfort, is not engaged in a search for real truth, but in a primitive reduction of existing knowledge to one common denominator. That is, by searching for the first suitable excuse that comes along.

Festinger not only explained in detail the essence of the theory of cognitive dissonance, but tried to explain the reasons and ways of a possible way out of the situation.

Reasons for the development of the syndrome

The occurrence of cognitive dissonance can be explained by the following reasons:

1. The discrepancy between socially accepted norms of behavior and life beliefs.
2. Inconsistency of the information received, coming from an event that exists in life experience.
3. Inconsistency of concepts familiar to a person, which he is guided by when making certain decisions.
4. The emergence of conflicting ideas, the presence of innate stubbornness. When a person does not want to follow and obey the ethical and cultural norms accepted in society.

How to Reduce Dissonance

This condition provokes the development of persistent internal contradiction, creating severe discomfort. In some especially sensitive people, internal stress causes the development of insomnia, apathy, and loss of interest in life.

To reduce discomfort, the psychologist suggests using the following methods:

1. Change the behavioral line. If you feel that an action will be wrong, going against your beliefs, change your tactics, even completely abandoning any action.
2. Change your attitude (persuasion). To reduce the feeling of guilt and increase the feeling that the action is right, try to change your personal perception of the situation.
3. Dose out information. Try to perceive only the positive aspects of the current situation, while cutting off possible negativity. Negative emotions should not be taken seriously or should be avoided.
4. Study the situation from all sides. Find out all the nuances, facts and get a more complete perception, which will help you form a tolerant line of behavior for yourself. Make it the only correct one.
5. Enter additional elements. To stop the development of the syndrome, try to “dilute” it with some other factor. The main goal is to reshape the current situation in a positive and more profitable form.

Life situation

Imagine a completely ordinary situation. You have a good job. A new boss arrives, with whom the work relationship does not work out. There are nagging on his part and inappropriate behavior. The director's rudeness makes you want to get rid of him. But a change of leadership without a change of job is impossible.

What to do, how to remove the existing discomfort? There are three exit options:

1. Pay off and leave the service.
2. Develop the ability to have a philosophical attitude towards a rude director and stop reacting to his attacks.
3. Endure, convincing yourself that the loss of a good job with a friendly, familiar team and a good salary outweighs the “minus” that is an unpleasant boss.

Any of the three options solves the problem and relieves cognitive dissonance. But the first creates additional difficulties (searching for another job). This option is the worst. Options 2 and 3 are the most gentle, but they also require work on yourself.

The scientist, studying cognitive dissonance and developing ways out of it, relied on a number of real life cases. Their knowledge helps to understand the essence of the situation and get rid of it with “little loss.”

Cognitive dissonance: examples from life

These real stories that happened to people are the most typical psychological examples of cognitive dissonance.

Example 1. During World War II, in an American camp where Japanese refugees lived, rumors arose about the deceitfulness of the Americans. People said that the Americans created such good living conditions that existed in the camp for a reason. Their friendliness is deceptive, and the supposedly decent way of life was created specifically to lull the vigilance of refugees in order to facilitate reprisals against them.

Japanese refugees spread such rumors due to an internal misunderstanding of the sincerity of the Americans. Indeed, in the minds of the Japanese, the United States is a country that is extremely hostile towards Japan.

Example 2. Taken from a fable. The well-known tale about grapes and the cunning hungry fox is a vivid example of cognitive dissonance. The beast really wants to taste the grapes, but cannot reach the berries on the high-growing vine. Then the fox, trying to remove the internal discomfort that has arisen, convinces itself that the grapes are green and sour.

Example 3. Let's talk to heavy smokers. They all know very well that the addiction has a negative impact on health, and smoking needs to be stopped. But the force of habit is stronger. A person justifies himself by saying that nothing will happen to him.

Creating internal confidence in safety, the smoker cites the fate of various celebrities as an example (to reassure him). For example, Fidel Castro, who lived to a ripe old age without letting go of a cigar. The smoker concludes that the harm from nicotine is exaggerated - inner peace is gained and discomfort subsides.

The danger of cognitive dissonance

This feature of a person’s psychological makeup plays into the hands of many fraudulent manipulators. Knowing the basics and essence of the syndrome, you can skillfully manipulate people. After all, a person, fearing the appearance of an internal imbalance, is capable of agreeing to actions that are unacceptable to him.

In this case, scammers also play on the innate internal vanity that every individual has. For example, in order to “cheat” a person out of money, you should initially convince him of generosity by skillfully conducting a preliminary conversation. And then ask for money. The resulting cognitive dissonance plays into the hands of scammers. The victim gives money to maintain confidence in his own goodness.

The benefits of cognitive dissonance

Cognitive dissonance can also be beneficial. In this case, you need to learn not to look for the first excuse that comes along in an attempt to drown out the internal contradiction. Instead, by calmly thinking, unravel the whole tangle of a disturbing situation, turning the inconvenience into a powerful incentive for self-development.

This is exactly what Zen Buddhists practice in their desire to know themselves. They artificially create a powerful state of cognitive dissonance, taking the individual beyond the usual logical perception of events.

Thus, a person approaches “satori” (full awakening). Zen Buddhists call this practice the “paradoxical parable koan.” It’s worth practicing - after all, a life based on internal harmony leads to longevity and prosperity.

The theory of cognitive dissonance was created in 1957, Leon Festinger, in the process of creating this theory, acted as a student of Kurt Lewin. He considers need as the initial concept; it is not just a need, but its special type “the need to evaluate oneself” - i.e. the ability to evaluate one’s opinions, abilities. To do this, opinions must be correlated with social reality, that is, receive support or confirmation from society. That is, the main task of a person is to compare his opinion with the opinions of other people, to compare them.

At the same time, Festinger suggested that the desire to compare oneself with others decreases significantly if the differences between opinions increase. A person always strives to avoid situations in which his opinion is far from the opinions of others, and, on the contrary, looks for situations where he encounters similar opinions. A person starting to learn to play chess is more likely to compare himself with other beginners than with professionals. Festinger notes that if there is a minimal discrepancy between the opinions of the group and the individual, this leads to conformism, i.e. a person changes his own opinion under pressure groups . Receiving support in this way, the individual avoids a state of dissonance and strengthens his cognitions (opinions, judgments, beliefs). The second part of this theory concerns a need of a different nature - this is also a need for knowledge, but knowledge about oneself, the need to know is connected, consistent and consistent.

Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable, unpleasant state in which the individual resides under the influence of two contradictory cognitions.

A state of cognitive dissonance occurs whenever an individual simultaneously has two cognitions (ideas, beliefs, attitudes, behavior patterns, etc.). Thus, two cognitions are in dissonance if the first implies a negation of the second. The state of cognitive dissonance causes unpleasant sensations, and people strive to reduce it. It is impossible to adhere to two contradictory ideas; it is the same as “flirting with the absurd,” notes the existentialist philosopher Albert Camus. Cognitive dissonance can be reduced by changing one or both cognitions to make them more compatible with each other. As an example, consider the following: A smoker reads an article about medical research linking smoking to cancer. In this case, two of his cognitions enter into dissonance - “I smoke cigarettes” and “smoking causes cancer.” According to Festinger, a person initially begins to work on one goal - he needs to quit smoking - the final version is “I don’t smoke.” However, this is not an easy task and after several attempts the person moves on to work on the second cognition “smoking causes cancer.” For example, appeal to the fact that the experimental data obtained on this issue are ambiguous, and besides, if such smart and sensible people as Natasha, Sveta and Alla do this, then smoking is actually not so dangerous. A woman can switch to lighter cigarettes, smoke less per day, etc.

Thus, we can draw the following conclusions: People spend a huge amount of time and effort protecting their Ego, but this does not make them better. And therefore, if we strive to reduce dissonance, we will never be able to admit our own mistakes, we will drive them under the carpet, that is, into the unconscious, or we will turn them into our achievements. It is necessary to use the experience of dissonance for this. To learn from your mistakes. There are several ways: 1) A clear understanding of one’s own aspirations, protection of the “I” and reduction of dissonance; 2) Awareness of that fact. That my doing stupid or immoral things does not mean that I am an irreparably stupid or immoral person; 3) through strengthening my ability to recognize the benefits that acknowledging my mistakes and learning from them can bring.

4. The theory of congruence by C. Ostgood and P. Tannenbaum (the current state of cognitivism).

The concept of “Congruence” introduced by C. Osgood and P. Tannenbaum,

is synonymous with the term “balance”, “coincidence” ». The theory was created in 1955. Its main difference from other theories lies in the attempt to predict changes in attitudes (or personality attitudes). Under the influence of the desire to establish correspondence not to one, but simultaneously to two objects. The area of ​​practical application of this theory is mass communication, so it is most convenient to give examples from this area. In this theory we are talking about a triad: R – recipient, K – communicator, O – information about the object. If the recipient positively evaluates a communicator who gives a positive evaluation to some phenomenon that the recipient himself evaluates negatively. Then a situation of incongruity arises in the recipient’s cognitive structure; The two types of assessments, my own and the communicator’s, do not coincide. A way out of this situation can be a change in the recipient’s attitude towards both the communicator and the object.

Lecture “Interactionist theories (symbolic interactionism J. Mead, G. Blumer, M. Kuhn)”

1. Symbolic interactionism (M. Kuhn, J. Mead).

2. Social dramaturgy of I. Goffman.

3. Social constructionism – K. Gergen;

4. Theory of social representations S. Moscovici.

Literature:

1. Andreeva G. M., Bogomolova N. N., Petrovskaya L. A. Foreign social psychology of the twentieth century: Theoretical approaches: Textbook for universities. M. 2001. – 288 p.

2. Jergen K. The movement of social constructionism in modern psychology // Social psychology: self-reflection of marginality. Reader. M., 1995.

3. Ilyin I. Postmodernism. Dictionary. St. Petersburg 1999.

4. Harre R. The Second Cognitive Revolution // Psychological Journal. 1996. T. 17. No. 2.

The name of this direction comes from the concept of “interaction”. We know that interaction means interaction, but not any interaction, but only social interaction - that is, the interaction of people in a group, in communication. The views of George Mead, as well as some provisions of the concepts of Linton and Merton, acted as a general theoretical source. It must be said that the research of Mead and other interactionists is sociological in orientation and is an example of “sociological social psychology.” The main element of the study is not the individual and his involvement in the social process, but the process of interaction of individuals in a group. There are 3 main directions in the field of interactionist orientation. 1) Symbolic interactionism. 2) Role theories. 3) Reference group theories.

Symbolic interactionism.

Oral tradition by J. Mead.

J. Mead's works are considered the most significant in this area, the most famous being "Consciousness, Personality and Society", which was published after his death. During Mead's lifetime, not a single one of his socio-psychological works was published. He was characterized by the so-called oral tradition, that is, he developed his scientific concepts only in lectures on social psychology, which he gave for about 40 years at the sociology department of the University of Chicago, so Mead's book is compiled on the basis of handwritten notes, transcripts of lectures and student notes. Mead's ideas were developed by his students, in particular Bloomer. Which, designated Mead's ideas as “Symbolic interactionism”.

"Symbolic interactionism» mainly focuses on problems symbolic communication, i.e. communication and interaction carried out using symbols.

Basic premises of the theory of interactionism: 1 ) People act in relation to “things” (ideas, other people, objects, social institutions, enemies, personal freedom, situations, etc.) based on the meanings that “things” have for them. 2) The meanings of things are created or arise in interaction with the social environment. 3) Values ​​are used, and also change in the process of human interpretation of surrounding phenomena and things. Social interaction gives rise to a huge number of symbolic interpretations of the same object (for example, in different cultures: in India, a cow is considered a divine animal that cannot be killed, cow farms in the USA and Russia). Likewise, individual gestures act as a kind of symbols, but even the same ones can be interpreted differently, therefore, says Mead, the meaning of a symbol or gesture should be sought in the reaction of the person to whom it is addressed. The idea of ​​cultural studies (case studies) developed on the basis of symbolic interactionism.

Symbolic communication was declared to be the constitutive principle of the human psyche. It is interpreted as the main feature that distinguishes man from the animal world.

Thus, for the process of successful communication, a person must have the ability to take on the role of another, i.e., enter into the position of that person “try on oneself, his role”, to whom the communication is addressed, look at yourself through his eyes. Only in this case does the individual turn into a personality, into a social being who is able to treat himself as an object. Thus, the individual, the personality, is always social, that is, it cannot be formed outside the group, outside society. Mead identified three main components in the personality structure (by analogy with Freudian theory). This is me, mi, self. I am an impulsive, creative driving principle. “Mi” is the image of the individual that others should see, internal social control, and “Self” is the self, the personal “I”; a combination of the first and second components.

During group interaction, an individual needs to generalize the position of the majority of group members.

The behavior of an individual is closely connected with the performance of those social roles with which the individual identifies himself. All modern theories of role are based on the symbolic developments of J. Mead, in addition, It was Mead who introduced the concept of “role”, into the space of social psychology. But at the same time, he did not give a clear definition of this concept, using it as very amorphous and vague (in fact, this concept was correlated with the theatrical definition). Mead's main idea was the idea of ​​“taking the role of another” - that is, the ability to look at oneself from the outside through the eyes of a communication partner. The concept of social role is considered as a very complex category. The socio-psychological aspect of the social is connected, first of all, with the subjective factors of the social role, i.e. with the disclosure of certain socio-psychological mechanisms and patterns of perception and performance of social roles. The complexity of this phenomenon does not allow it to be unambiguously determined. If we turn to the previous material, we can say: « That the fundamental attribution error is associated with the tendency to exaggerate the importance of personal and dispositional factors, rather than situational or environmental ones, i.e. there is an underestimation of the impact of the social role.”

Therefore, it is customary to talk about the following aspects of the role:

1) Role as a system of expectations existing in society regarding the behavior of an individual, in his interaction with others (perceptions of other people).

2) Role as a system of specific expectations towards oneself of an individual occupying a certain position (own ideas)

3) Role as the overt observable behavior of an individual (observable behavior of an individual).

The social role in most cases, when examined socially and psychologically, is associated with the status of the individual, but not as a certain position in the system of social relations, but primarily as a subjective category (a set of role expectations), which are divided into expectations - rights, and expectations - responsibilities individual when performing one or another role). The concept of a social role is very rarely used; the definitions most often used are “individual role” and “interpersonal role”.

Role classifications. Thibault and Kelly share roles "prescribed"- externally given, independent of the individual’s efforts. AND "achieved" - those achieved through the personal efforts of the individual. Linton distinguishes active and latent roles . An individual is a bearer of many roles, but at a particular moment he can play only one role, it will be active, and all others will be latent. T. Sabrin and V. Allen classify roles depending on the degree of intensity of their performance, on the degree of involvement in the role. They identify 7 such stages from 0, when the individual is only considered a carrier, but essentially does not fulfill it, to maximum involvement (which is characterized by fulfillment under the influence of belief in supernatural forces). At intermediate stages there are ritual roles (the second level of inclusion).

In this article we will take a closer look at the concept of dissonance. What is it? In what areas is it used?

Terminology

The word comes from the Latin dissonantia, which can be literally translated as “dissonant sound.” Dissonance - what is this term? What is its content? This term is actively used in various fields. For example, it is often used in art, psychology, and philosophy. Does the word dissonance have a synonym? There are several concepts with similar meaning. Here are the most common ones: incongruity, disagreement, contradiction, disharmony, cacophony (the latter is a synonym from the field of music theory). In essence, this is a violation of harmony, a certain discomfort caused by the discrepancy between existing knowledge and ideas and other new facts. Dissonance - what is it, for example, in the theory of art? Let's turn to the scientific interpretation. According to the encyclopedia, dissonance in music is a different sound. In this case, simultaneously sounding tones do not merge with each other.

Opposite concepts

Consonance (from the Latin consonantia - euphony) is a definition completely polar to dissonance. But together they characterize the relationship between two pairs of “elements”. These components, in essence, are knowledge. Some “elements” are knowledge regarding one’s “I”. Others are information relating to general problems of the world order. The term “knowledge” was often used in a broad sense, including, in addition to information itself, also opinions, as well as beliefs, attitudes and values. Despite the fact that there are quite significant differences between these phenomena, they can be considered “elements of knowledge.” And it is between their pairs that dissonance and consonance can exist.

Types of Relationships

If cognitive elements do not meet anywhere, do not overlap with each other, and have nothing in common with each other, such elements should be called irrelevant. For us, we are interested exclusively in those elements between which relations of consonance and dissonance can and do arise. The theory of cognitive dissonance was formulated in the mid-twentieth century by Leon Festinger. According to it, two separately located elements will be in dissonance with respect to each other if the negation of one of them is derived from the other. The following example can be given here: a person is sure that he is surrounded exclusively by his friends, but still feels discomfort and fear in this situation.

That is, there is a dissonant attitude. Or another example: a person who has fallen into serious debt suddenly decides to go on an expensive trip around the world. Here, too, two cognitive elements will be dissonant with each other. A “discord” between two elements of knowledge can arise as a consequence of a number of different reasons. These may be a person’s desires and expectations, acquired life experience, or other factors. We will look at them in more detail below.

Causes of cognitive dissonance

We have already answered the question “dissonance - what is it”? Now, to complete the picture, it is worth understanding the causes and factors of its occurrence. First, it may arise due to a logical inconsistency. For example, if a person is confident that in a year he will build a good house, but at the same time has no idea how to lay the foundation, then these two elements are dissonant. Secondly, the reason may be cultural traditions or customs. Suppose that a man does not give up his seat on a tram to an elderly grandmother, but knows perfectly well that, according to established rules of etiquette and moral standards, he must do this. In such a case, his knowledge and awareness of what he is doing is wrong is a dissonant relationship. Although in some other culture, where it is not customary to give up your seat on transport to older people, this situation, obviously, would not be an example of the relationship in question.

Thirdly, dissonance occurs when a private opinion in a specific situation goes beyond a more general one. Let's say a citizen who considers himself a radical votes in an election for a candidate with liberal views. The cognitive elements of these two opinions will be dissonant. Finally, a state of cognitive dissonance may occur due to previous experiences. Let's imagine a person who several times in his life fell ill with acute sore throat after eating ice cream. And so, once again he eats it. At the same time, he hopes not to get sick again. This is a clear example of cognitive dissonance based on past life experiences.

Degree of "non-conformity"

One obvious aspect will help determine the level of dissonance. It lies in the objective characteristics of the elements between which there is an “inappropriate” relationship. Suppose that two in a knowledge system are dissonant with respect to each other. Then the degree of "inconsistency" will be in direct proportion to the level of importance of these elements. If the components are very significant for a particular individual, then the dissonance index will be correspondingly high.

Examples

Let us imagine a man giving fifty rubles to a beggar in an underground passage. At the same time, this person realizes that the poor man does not really need this money. But still he gives money, and the dissonance that arises in this case between the two elements is not very strong. After all, neither the first nor the second element is so significant for this person. And the second, radically opposite example. A student, on the eve of an important exam for him, does not prepare for it at all. At the same time, he is well aware that his level of knowledge in the subject will not allow him to pass this test. And in this case, the degree of dissonance for the student will be much higher, because both elements of knowledge are very important for the individual.

Are there systems free from dissonant relationships?

With a high degree of confidence, we can assume that in our life there is objectively no such system that would be completely free from the presence of “inconsistency.” After all, no matter what action an individual is going to take, no matter what feeling he is experiencing, there will always be at least one minor cognitive element that will enter into a dissonant relationship with the “behavioral” component.

Here's a simple example. A seemingly ordinary and trivial belief in the necessity and usefulness of an evening walk before bed may have some cognitive elements that appear dissonant with this knowledge. So, a person may think that there are some tasks waiting for him at home that he must finish. Or he will notice that it is going to rain outside and the like. In a word, for any cognitive element in one system there will certainly be other elements relevant to it, so the undoubted fact is the presence, albeit to a small extent, of dissonance.