Introduction
In 1959 Leon Festinger published his work on the theory on Cognitive Dissonance. This theory explains human behavior by describing the internal thought process which leads to particular behaviors and is described as a theory of cognition in behavioral psychology.
This was a paradigm shift in the field of social psychology because prior to this, behaviorism was the standard philosophy among social psychologists. Behaviorism is an approach to understanding the behavior of animals and humans by examining an organism’s response to stimuli found in the environment. These behaviors are learned responses to stimuli resulting from reward and punishment outcomes.
When Festinger first published his work, it was met with a lot of criticism from other behaviorists who believed external behaviors were the only reliable measure in the field of psychology. Many psychologists of the time viewed cognition as a temperamental and unscientific concept. Because neuroscience was still relatively new during this time period, the criticism of his theory was understandable, even if invalid, since his theory was later substantially proven. As neuroscience progressed and our understanding of the human brain has improved, the concept of cognition as a predictor for human behavior has gained its weight in gold.
Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive dissonance is the theory which states that if a person holds two incompatible beliefs or behaves in a way which is incompatible with a current belief, they will experience emotional discomfort referred to as dissonance. This discomfort pressures the person to resolve the internal inconsistency as soon as possible which can be achieved in a few different ways. Festinger presents several ways in which a person could be expected to behave from this hypothesis. To resolve feelings of dissonance a person may change their cognition, which is to say they may change the way they think about something or change their belief all together. They may change their actions of behaviors to coincide with their beliefs, or the person may acquire selective information which justifies the previous behavior.
A Cognitive Dissonance Example
When it comes to cognitive dissonance, one of the most frequent and widely used examples within universities and colleges, and even psychologists themselves, is the person who smokes cigarettes. This is not a bad example of cognitive dissonance since it describes the idea of a person who smokes knows it is unhealthy, yet still continues to smoke. This person may justify their behavior (smoking) by altering their cognition, in this case claiming that smoking is only bad for those who smoke a pack or more a day. Since the subject smokes less than a pack a day, then they are not in the category of an unhealthy smoker, therefore have adjusted their cognition to compensate. They can also reduce their dissonance by adding new information to balance out their belief by stating that smoking reduces stress, and stress is far more harmful than smoking a few cigarettes a day. Or perhaps they may even state that it has not been proven that cigarettes, alone, cause cancer. There are even smokers who are fully aware that smoking is bad, unhealthy, and which potentially could lead to lung cancer, yet feel that they would rather live a shorter life filled with personal pleasures than a longer life which denies those same freedoms and pleasures.
What is interesting about this specific example is understanding why it is the most commonly used example. Smokers are currently a minority throughout the world, and although choosing to smoke is unhealthy, the example is used as a form to show the cognitive dissonance that smokers face for their unhealthy and ridiculous habit. But a better example would be something that the majority of the world faces. A struggle that is more common among all of us when describing the challenges of cognitive dissonance. Drinking alcohol is just as great of a threat to a persons health as smoking is (AARP, 2018), yet finding this example as a form of cognitive dissonance is almost as difficult as spotting a unicorn. The drinker will argue that they don’t drink that often, in fact, only a few drinks on the weekend. But how is this excuse for their cognitive dissonance any different from the smoker who states they only smoke when they drink? Perhaps because the majority of human beings on this planet drink alcohol. And people consume alcohol even knowing that it causes severe health problems as well as being a source of thousands of deaths a year ranging from medical conditions to being intoxicated while operating a motor vehicle, train, or airplane. Perhaps cognitive dissonance is easier explained when we point out the faults of a minority group, rather than a majority because no one likes to hear they’re just as guilty when it comes to denying the facts. When it comes to cognitive dissonance, people are likely to choose the path which presents the least resistance and removes feelings of dissonance the fastest. They will also avoid any decisions which add or threaten to add feelings of dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance Surrounding 9/11
If we take this theory and apply it to how members of the public interpret scientific findings this concept often develops into a denial of evidence. For many people, it is easier to change their perception of the actions they take rather than change their beliefs or the actions which they likely perform on a regular basis. This results in individuals having beliefs that are contrary to the body of scientific evidence. Instead of changing their beliefs or actions to match that evidence they will attempt to discredit the entire field of science by one or more of a myriad of possible ways such as claiming there is a conspiracy or that they know better than the experts. This is because it is easier to alleviate their dissonance by claiming the body of knowledge is wrong rather than actually embracing the fact that they were the ones who were mistaken. This then forces a change in their long-held beliefs or regular behavior. But what if the evidence, or rather information, that is being presented to the public by the government is false, misguided, or wrong?
17 years after the terrorist attack on September 11 the American public has been exposed to multiple conspiracy theories. Some theories are radically disrespectful, even to the poorly educated. But one theory exists which has been questioned by scientists, architects, construction workers, and engineers. It is theory which revolves around the destruction, or rather the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Tower 7. The topic of this paper is not prove or disprove a theory, but rather question how the public (and the government) will respond to new facts regarding the collapse and destruction of the towers should new evidence expose that the towers did not collapse solely from an airplane striking it. If it’s reasonable to apply cognitive dissonance to the public for not accepting the information or evidence presented, it is just as reasonable to apply cognitive dissonance to the government who reject any form of new evidence or information that discredits them or proves otherwise.
Many theories can be disregarded, because they are presented by individuals who have no background, professionally or educationally, which gives them any form of credit to question the governments response to how the towers fell. Yet when you have hank ranking military officers, government officials, leading metallurgical engineers, scientists, and fellow New York City architects who helped design these towers questioning why the towers fell, the government may have a problem. There is something not being told to the public for one reason or another. With continuous evidence being presented to support these theories the public, and even government officials, have begun to denounce such attempts to disprove their findings and even argue the evidence is not real. When actual and factual evidence is presented, yet not allowed to be considered because it would create a great mistrust between the public and the government, we then have wide scale cognitive dissonance. A form of cognitive dissonance that could result in civil unrest. How would the public react to news which stated the government was wrong or that new evidence shows something else occurred other than what was reported by government officials? The issue is that many people believe that every conspiracy theory revolves around the government being responsible for this attack. This creates a wall of rejection to any new evidence that may exist which proves that the government wasn’t responsible, but rather incorrect in what caused the towers to collapse. By doing this, they simply give more credit to this conspiracy theory, along with many others.
We all Have Some Capacity for Evil
The Stanley Milgram Experiment is one of the most notable experiments in studying human psychology and ethics. Another very well known experiment is the 1971 Stanford Zimbardo Prison Experiment. This study observed how social situations can affect human behavior. Psychologist Philip Zimbardo set up a mock prison in the basement of the Stanford psych building. He then selected 24 students to act as prisoners and jail guards. The researchers observed the prisoners and guards for a period of six days through hidden cameras. The experiment itself was scheduled to last two weeks, but was cut short by Mr. Zimbardo who reported it was due to the guards abusive and unethical behavior toward the inmates.
It is easy to believe the idea that all humans are capable of committing evil and that unspeakable acts committed by humans aren’t actually that unspeakable. They are acts which should remind us of what humans are capable of. This is where cognitive dissonance creeps in. These unspeakable acts are in fact acts of evil, a mindset, that is shielded by our society. In most cases throughout the world, those placed in positions of leadership within a society choose not to inform the public what people are truly capable of because of fear, which is fear of the unknown. It is only when the truth is leaked by the news and on social media do we, the public, truly get a taste of reality.
The Stanford experiment, in itself, does not prove that people are capable of committing evil. The experiment, in most part, was staged. The students were given instructions to behave in a certain fashion, and it was also made clear that no consequence would be extended for doing so. The theory of consequence, one that if removed, humans are capable of doing anything. Laws exist and work because they present consequences for actions. They provide guidance in resolving cognitive dissonance when a person is doing something that is illegal, but do it anyway. It is consequence that provides guidance for ethical behavior. Evil is committed either through personal desire, forced or ordered to commit the act, suffering from a mental disability, or the consequence for committing the act is either non-existent or not strict enough to be a deterrent. The only creatures on the planet who behave unethically, are humans. Humans are intelligent enough to create ethics, morals, and guidelines. They’re just not smart enough to abide by them which often results in cognitive dissonance.
Cognitive Dissonance Portrayed in Hollywood Movies
There is an old African proverb that summarizes the effects war has on children which states “When elephants fight, it is the grass that suffers.” The Netflix based film “Beasts of No Nation” is based off a young boy who is exposed to war and violence within a country of Africa. Shortly after the beginning of the movie, this young boy is exposed to the horror of seeing his family murdered in front of him. From that moment on he is forced to survive on his own, both physically and mentally. Shortly after escaping his families murderer’s, he is captured by a militia group and forced to make a life or death decision, either join the group or be killed.
On of the most obvious mental disorders this child will suffer from this experience will be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). PTSD is defined as an anxiety disorder that may develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which severe physical harm occurred or was threatened (Psychology Today, 2015). The movie “Beasts of No Nation” portrays a powerful message of how people are affected by exposure to war and violence. The difficult issues adults face, including soldiers, after being deployed into combat are sometimes overwhelming. One can only imagine how a child would face and overcome those same issues. Although the movie is not based off a true story, what the movie portrays has happened in Africa and still continues to this very day. But PTSD is not the only conflict this child must overcome, it will be a constant struggle of cognitive dissonance in every decision he is forced to make after he is captured. Decisions he knows are wrong, but chooses to commit by either confirming his actions in order to save his life, or beginning to believe it’s the right thing to do.
The boy’s name is Agu and he lives with his family in a small Western African village. Agu is a young boy who grows up in poverty, yet has a very loving and caring family. During the period of the film, there is ongoing civil war between the official Army “Armed Forces of the Reformation Council” (AFRC), rebels, and militants groups throughout the country. Th family attempts to escape the violence, but is caught in the middle of it resulting in his father and brother being murder right in front of him, and his mother and sister taken as captives. Agu escapes into the jungle, but is eventually captured by a militia group who offers him the chance to avenge his father and brother’s death, but must be willing to commit unspeakable acts such as extreme drug use, rape, and murder. A moment of cognitive dissonance, to choose a life as a criminal in order to seek out a way to avenge the death of loved ones. The child is brought back to the militia camp and almost beaten to death in order to be indoctrinated and desensitized. He is forced to watch women be raped, and men mutilated and murdered. The mental impact from this type of torture and abuse must be overwhelming, suffering from severe anxiety, depression, hopelessness, grief, resentment, fear, and anger. Unable to rationalize cognition or even dissonance at this point, impacted further by PTSD, Separation Anxiety disorder, and the onset of multiple other mental conditions.
Agu goes through the movie being exposed to terrible acts and committing horrible crimes. The militia group is finally disbanded once the leader and several members are killed, and the young children within the group are sent to a child recovery and rehabilitation center. In the final scene of the movie Agu is sitting with a woman who is a counselor. She asks him to open up to her in order to confess to her what may be haunting him. Agu contemplates the request for a moment and then tells the counselor “I saw terrible things and I did terrible things. So if I’m talking to you, it will make me sad and it will make you, too, sad. In this life, I just want to be happy in this life. If I am telling this to you (what he has done) you will think that I am sort of beast, or devil. I am all of these things. But I also had a mother, father, brother and sister once….And they loved me.” In that moment, Agu understands that people will always view him for the crimes he committed, rather than viewing the crimes that committed him. Perhaps watching the film will allow the viewer to ask themselves what path they would have chosen if they were in Agu’s shoes, and perhaps even question their own beliefs creating a that moment of uncomfortableness we refer to as cognitive dissonance.
Conclusion
Cognitive dissonance is something that both individuals and groups can experience. The outcome can be either positive or negative which depends on the person, their situation, their environment, their reasoning, and their internal beliefs. People will most likely resolve cognitive dissonance in three ways: First, an inconsistency between an action and a belief will bring about feelings of dissonance. Second, feelings of dissonance can be reconciled in three main ways: a change of belief, a change of action, or a change of perception of the action. Lastly, the easiest path to achieving a reduction in dissonance will be the most likely path chosen. However one chooses to reduce or resolve their cognitive dissonance, it becomes clear how easy it is to forget the world around you when the only problems you fix are your own.
...(download the rest of the essay above)