Cognitive theory of communication

[Last Island]

The theory of cognitive dissonance was developed by a social scientist Leon Festinger. The origin of the theory dates back from late 50s as in 1957, Festinger published his work on human behaviour and the decision-making process. He presented a theory that was at its heart quite simple. It began with the idea of cognitions, the bits of knowledge. According to Festinger, they can pertain to any variety of thought, values, facts or emotions. For instance, the fact that I like ice cream is cognition. So is the fact that I am a man. People have countless cognition in their minds.

The theory is regarded as a milestone that changed the way psychologists look at decision-making process and behaviour of human beings.

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND

Leon Festinger synthesized a set of studies to distill a theory about communication’s social influences. Cognitive dissonance enjoyed great popularity form the late 1950s through the mid 1970s. Theoretical problems and conflicting findings lead to temporary replacement by similar “self” theories in the early 1980ss, but cognitive dissonance regained its place as the umbrella theory for selective exposure to communication by the late 1980s.

CRUX OF THE THEORY

The basic idea behind cognitive dissonance theory is that people do not like to have dissonant cognitions. In fact, many people argue that the desire to have consonant cognitions is as strong as our basic desires for food and shelter. As a result, when someone does experience two or more dissonant cognitions, they will attempt to do away with the dissonance.

CORE ASSUMPTION AND STATEMENTS

Originally cognitive dissonance is adopted from social psychology. The title of the theory gives the concept as cognitive is thinking or the mind and dissonance is inconsistency or conflict. Cognitive dissonance is the psychological conflict.

The theory suggests:

• Dissonance is psychologically uncomfortable enough to motivate people to achieve consonance.
• In a state of dissonance, people will avoid information and situations that might increase the dissonance.
• How dissonance arises is easy to imagine. It may be unavoidable in information rich society. How people deal with it is more difficult.

SCOPE AND APPLICATION

Dissonance theory applies to all situations involving attitude formation and change. This theory is able to manipulate people into certain behaviour, by doing so these people will alter their attitudes themselves. It is especially relevant to decision making and problem solving.

EXAMPLE
Consider a driver who refuses to use a seat-belt despite knowing that the law requires it, and it saves lives. Then a news report or a friend’s car incident stunts the scofflaw into facing reality. Dissonance may be reduced by

• Altering behaviour: Start using a seat belt so the behaviour is consonant with knowing that doing so is smart.
• Seeking informations that is consonant with the behaviour: Air bags are safer than seat belts.

If the driver never faces a situation that threatens the decision not to use seat belts, then no dissonance reduction action is likely because the impetus to reduce dissonance depends on the magnitude of the dissonance held.

UNRELATED COGNITIONS

Most cognitions have nothing to do with each other. For instance, the two cognitions mentioned before (that I am a man and that I like ice cream) are unrelated. Some cognitions, however, are related. For instance, perhaps I have a sweet tooth and I like ice cream. These cognitions are “consonant”, meaning that they are related and that one follow from the other. They go together, so to speak.

RELATED COGNITIONS

However, sometimes we have cognitions that are related, but do not follow one another. In fact, they may be opposite. For instance, perhaps I like ice cream but I am also trying to avoid it. These two are related but do not follow one another.

ELIMINATING COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

There are several key ways in which people attempt to overcome, or do away with, cognitive dissonance. One is by ignoring or eliminating the dissonant cognitions. By pretending that ice cream is not bad for me, I can have my cake and eat it too, so to speak. Ignoring the dissonant cognition allows us to do things we might otherwise view as wrong or inappropriate.

Another way to overcome cognitive dissonance is to alter the importance (or lack thereof) of certain cognitions. By either deciding that ice cream is extremely good (I cannot do without it) or that avoiding a disease isn’t that important (I like to take anyway), the problem of dissonance can be lessened. If one of the dissonant cognitions outweighs the other in importance and the result means that I can eat my ice cream and not feel bad about it.

CREATING NEW COGNITIONS

Yet another way that people react to cognitive dissonance is by adding or creating new cognitions. By creating or emphasizing new cognitions, I can overwhelm the fact that I know ice cream is bad for my health. For instance, I can emphasize new cognitions such as “I need calcium and dairy products” or “I had a small dinner”, etc. These new cognitions allow for the lessening of dissonance, as I now have multiple cognitions that say ice cream is okay, and only one, which says I shouldn’t eat it.

IGNORING THE NEW INFORMATION

Finally perhaps the most important way people deal with cognitive dissonance is to prevent it in the first place. If someone is presented with information that is dissonant from what they already know, the easiest way to deal with this new information is to ignore it, refuse to accept it, or simply avoid that type of information in general. Thus, a new study that says ice cream is more fattening than originally thought would be easily dealt with by ignoring it. Simply avoiding that type of information – simply refusing to read studies on ice cream, health magazines, etc. can prevent further, future problems.

APPLYING COGNITIVE DISSONANCE TO CONFLICT

Cognitive dissonance can play a tremendous role in conflict – both in its perpetuation and in its elimination. Both large-scale and small-scale conflict can be aggravated and/or lessened because of cognitive dissonance.

Similar examples can be found on all levels of conflict. Individuals on both sides of the abortions debate can be unwilling to look at new information about the other side’s stance in an attempt to avoid cognitive dissonance. This concept helps explain why people are so opposed to counterarguments, especially when it regards a value or belief that is very important to them,. Cognitive dissonance is so unpleasant that individuals would often rather be close-minded than be informed and deal with the repercussions of cognitive dissonance.

THE ROLE OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE IN REDUCING CONFLICT

In spite of people's desire to avoid it, the proper use of cognitive dissonance can be a useful tool in overcoming conflict. Cognitive dissonance is a basic tool for education in general. Creating dissonance can induce behavior or attitude change. By creating cognitive dissonance, you force people to react. In other words, a child can be encouraged to learn by creating dissonance between what they think they know and what they actually do – drawing attention to the fact that they know stealing is wrong even though they took a cookie, etc. The same idea can be used in adults. By introducing cognitive dissonance (pointing out the conflict between what people know and do), we can encourage a change in thought or action.

Tuning to the conflict in Northern Ireland, by pointing out the contradiction between religious beliefs and terrorism, people can be forced to rethink their actions. A Protestant or Catholic terrorist can participate in violent activities because they have dehumanized the other side in their mind. This eliminates any dissonance between their actions and their beliefs against murder or violence. By introducing new information – perhaps emphasizing the humanity of the other side (their families, their lives, letting the two sides meet in a casual environment, etc.) a new dissonance is created between what they are doing and what they know to be true. This forces a reaction. The individual must now either change their actions or read just their thoughts to account for this new information.

Similarly, in the abortion debate, the introduction of new information to both sides can lead to reconciliation through understanding and changes in both action and thought. Although individuals may never agree on the politics and policy of abortion, the conflict – particularly violent conflict – can be reduced and eliminated.

HOW TO PRODUCE COGNITIVE DISSONANCE

Dialogue is one method to produce cognitive dissonance and thus attitude change that has been used in both these and many other cases. The Public Conversation Project, in Cambridge, Massachusetts (US) for instance, has been running dialogues between pro-life and pro-choice abortion activities for many years. While people do not leave these dialogues having changed sides, they do come out of them with a new respect for people “on the other side” and an understanding that logical, rational, “good” people can feel the opposite way they do about this issue. This tends to tone down their approach to advocacy, generally making it more constructive than it might otherwise have been.

Disarming behaviours are another way to create cognitive dissonance. This is done by supplying learning what the other side thinks of or expects of you, and then doing something very different. For example, if you are considered by the other side to be uncaring and cruel, make a small gesture that demonstrates that you care about the other side’s feelings or situation. This causes cognitive dissonance. Just doing this once may not be enough to change anyone's attitudes or behavior, as they are likely to ignore the dissonant information. If it is done several times, however, or if the behavior is visible enough that it cannot be ignored, the results are sometimes striking. Two of the best examples of this process were Egyptian President Anwar Sadat's unexpected trip to Israel in 1977 and Soviet Premier Gorbachev's trip to the United States in 1990. Both of these leaders had never visited the "enemy" country before, and when they did, they were so personable that it changed the minds of the Israelis and the Americans about the "goodness" and intents of "the enemy."