Why are approach-approach conflicts likely to create cognitive dissonance

Consider the following hypothetical situation: John is an avid environmentalist. He is president of the environmental club at school, goes to climate change marches, and John’s family owns an electric car.

One day, he decides to attend a lecture on the negative environmental effects of certain animal products which apparently contribute significantly to climate change. To his dismay, John realizes that he uses many of those products on a regular basis. His stomach drops:

That means that he is part of the problem he is trying to resolve.

This cannot be! John is a champion of the environment. But, John doesn't think he is willing to stop eating meat and he knows his family won’t be.

To get rid of the pit in his stomach and resolve the identity crisis he is having, John quickly concludes that the speaker must not know what they are talking about. Also, he thinks, even if animal products aren’t great for the environment, he has done so many other things that are good for the environment, that it must even out (at least). John’s mind is put at ease.

Cognitive dissonance is most likely at work here. To resolve the inconsistency revealed by this new information on certain animal products, John rejects and rationalizes the speech so that his identity as an environmentalist isn’t painfully compromised.

Looking further into the effects of cognitive dissonance leads to troubling conclusions across academia and political society. If researchers tend to analyze information in a way that supports conclusions that are consistent with their own beliefs, then cognitive dissonance may threaten the objective methodology that underpins much of academia today.

The effectiveness of social causes is also threatened by cognitive dissonance. The change they often call for requires many people to change their existing beliefs and behavior. This is not possible if a significant portion of us do not consider evidence that conflicts with the beliefs or behaviors these causes seek to alter. Environmentalism and its associated climate change action movements are a good example. Most of us care for nature and want to preserve it. But the evidence championed by these movements often indicates that we aren’t doing enough as individuals. Many of us are part of the problem. Such evidence shows us that our behaviors are often at odds with our beliefs.

Seeing this contradiction, many of us respond by either rationalizing our behaviors, rejecting environmentalism and the evidence it relies on, or adopting the belief that our individual actions have a negligible effect on the environment. This prevents the widespread behavioral change many environmental causes call for.

Cognitive dissonance may also facilitate a political divide. When we believe strongly in a political leader or ideology, we are more likely to dismiss information that does not support their message. In other words, we often ignore or distort evidence that challenges our political beliefs. This is part of the reason why it is so difficult to change someone’s mind on political issues. Voters are likely to remain loyal to their chosen candidates and party even when evidence that should challenge those loyalties is presented.1

“When people feel a strong connection to a political party, leader, ideology, or belief, they are more likely to let that allegiance do their thinking for them and distort or ignore the evidence that challenges those loyalties.”

– Social psychologists Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris

Cognitive dissonance occurs when there is an uncomfortable tension between two or more beliefs that are held simultaneously.2 This most commonly occurs when our behaviors do not align with our attitudes – we believe one thing, but act against those beliefs. The strength of cognitive dissonance, or the pain it causes, depends on the number and relative weight of the conflicting beliefs. This mental conflict and the resulting discomfort motivates us to pick between beliefs by justifying and rationalizing one while rejecting or reducing the importance of the others.

We tend to pick the belief or idea that is most familiar and ingrained in us. Changing our beliefs isn’t easy, nor is changing the attitudes and behaviour associated with them. As a result, we usually stick with the beliefs we already hold, as opposed to adopting new ones that are presented to us. In fact, many of us go further by avoiding situations or information that might clash with our existing beliefs to create dissonance.

Psychologist Leon Festinger is credited with pioneering cognitive dissonance. He offers three explanations for why someone might be unwilling to change their existing beliefs or behaviour in light of new, conflicting information:

1. “The change may be painful or involve loss.” As mentioned above, changing our behavior or beliefs can be difficult— especially if they are deeply held or likely to bring hardship.
2. "The present behavior may be otherwise satisfying.” Think of smokers, many of whom know the adverse consequences of their behavior but succumb to the satisfaction that outweighs it. They are reluctant to accept information that confirms the future costs.
3. “Making the change may simply not be possible.” Festinger admits that this is unlikely, but still possible. Some emotional reactions for example, can be outside of our control at the time.3

Festinger goes on to point out that it is natural for us to look for internal psychological consistency. It forms our identity and allows us to make sense of the world. This makes sense: it would be difficult to think of yourself as a whole, and complete person if all your beliefs and opinions logically contradicted each other or never lined up with your behaviour.

“...the individual strives towards consistency within himself. His opinions and attitudes, for example, tend to exist in clusters that are internally consistent.”- Leon Festinger

There is no way of avoiding cognitive dissonance itself. What can be mitigated, is our natural response to it. Changing our beliefs when they are challenged by new information is often better than ignoring this information or rationalizing the existing beliefs which may be wrongly held. Thinking of change negatively may cause us to avoid employing it when in dissonance. So, we should instead seek to associate change with gratification and gain. This is called a conditioned or “learned reflexive response.” By conditioning ourselves to favour change as a response to mental conflict, we might be able to avoid rejecting, rationalizing, or avoiding conflicting information. And as always, being aware of a cognitive bias that normally occurs subsciously can help us recognize when our decisions are influenced by it.

What is the theory of cognitive dissonance?

What are the 3 causes of cognitive dissonance?

Why are approach

Why does an individual suffer from cognitive dissonance?