Harold W. Anderson, Ph.D., M.A., MFT
Cognitive dissonance takes place when beliefs or ideas contradict a problem behavior causing mental anguish. To resolve the conflict, people rationalize their beliefs to justify their behavior. So, for example, a person who smokes may rationalize the behavior even though they know it is not good for them.
For more than 15 years, I owned a marriage and family practice, and most of my clients, whether they were individuals, couples, or families, suffered emotional trauma because of a common problem. They had become involved with people whose values and behaviors were roadblocks to their mental well-being. Family members got involved with people whose behaviors and values clashed with the values that lie at the heart of the family structure creating issues that jeopardized the healthy functioning of the family. Couples fought because one of them embraced the advice of a friend whose values and behaviors are problematic to the couple’s relationship. An individual suffers because they have gotten involved with those whose influence creates problems for the person whether at work, at home or both. All-in-all, people, and the groups they create, can be a problem for other people and their ability to live successfully. The problem is, being involved with those whose influence is negative is almost like an addiction. Once addicted, it is very difficult to quit. Why?
Several examples will guide our understanding. As a Family Therapist, I have become somewhat of an expert on the way that systems influence and affect the development of people. The individual who becomes a part of the group, even if they didn’t at first, will begin to think, behave, and hold values and ethics that reflect the group. Once this indoctrination has taken place, it will be difficult to critically reflect upon the group experience for even if they do something society might think is wrong or morally questionable, as a member of the group, they will think such behaviors justified. So, for example, society might think that unjustified killing is wrong. That is, unless it is done as a matter of protection, or matters of military or police conflict, killing can’t be justified. However, if a person is a part of a street gang, the matter of “justified” killing is grossly modified. If a person betrays the gang by ratting out a member of the gang to law enforcement, it may seem warranted to the gang members to kill the “rat.” Few in the gang would call such a behavior into question while society would roundly condemn it.
None of my friends get caught. Besides, this is something I've always wanted. The store won't even know its gone!
Likewise, peer pressure forms another situation in which it may initially be difficult to say “no” to something that feels like it is wrong. Killing someone may not be the issue, but stealing something might be. Take for example shoplifting. By themselves, a youth might think it wrong to steal anything from a store. Perhaps they have learned from their family that such behaviors are wrong, but many of their friends do it. Initially, the youth may resist, but the more they hang around with these “friends,” the more they may begin to rationalize the behavior. “The store won’t miss this item and besides that, they don’t need it…stealing it won’t really hurt anyone, but it will make me look good in the eyes of my friends and beside that, I want it!” This rationalizing line of thought makes it easier for the youth to feel good about doing something they know to be wrong. “My parents are just a bunch of prudes anyway. They just don’t want me to have any fun” and so the youth steals the item. They do what they know to be wrong, but now it looks as if the behavior is justified because it is something most of their friends do.
Finally, religions can also have a similar impact. One would hope that the impact would be positive…help the poor, love the unlovely, forgive those who have wronged us, work to make the world better through acts of love. If a church embodies these values, its members will emulate them, but if they don’t the opposite is also true. Identifying where one stands on the issue is tricky business because religion often embeds our most fundamental values in emotional garb. Too often, the religious person does what they do based upon emotions. Emotions are powerful drivers of behaviors and the more intense the emotion, the less we tend to think about that which we are doing. People with impulse control issues will respond emotionally and only later think about what they have done. That is why this condition is so dangerous. A male with an emotional impulse control issue can easily hurt or perhaps even kill the ones they love without thinking about it although later they display regret. To a lesser degree, merchants appeal to emotions because a person will buy a product more quickly based upon emotions than if they think about it. The same is true of religion. Religious leaders have learned that emotional environments will reinforce what they preach much more readily than rational appeals. When I was growing up, the church my parents attended would have “altar calls.” These are services where a preacher would give a sermon that drew heavily upon guilt and sin. Towards the conclusion of the sermon, with music playing and the choir singing softly in the background, the minister would attempt to get people to come up front and give their lives to God. There was no philosophical discussion of God, the Christ they proclaimed was not predicated on a critical examination of Jesus’ life and teachings, and discussion of Christian ethics did not illuminate their definition of sin. All of that would make people think. They wanted them to feel, not think, so a group of church members would surround them and reinforce their feeling of guilt and self-doubt. It was a powerful display of group (system) dynamics and often, once the first move was made, it was difficult if not impossible to say “no” to this invitation. Even if a person thought themselves to be a good person, once the preacher was done, they were convinced that they were a worthless sinner in need of what the church had to offer. What they knew to be true was called into question with the power of group dynamics and their life was changed.
This is the power a group has over individuals. It is not impossible to stand up to group dynamics, but it is truly difficult and most often, people don’t. Groups are the best way to thwart what social psychologists call “cognitive dissonance.” When a person thinks they are a good person, but their beliefs tell them they cannot be unless they are “saved,” then they experience cognitive dissonance. To insist they are good would contradict their religious belief that they are a sinful person while believing they are a sinful person contradicts their everyday experience of being good, so they are at conflict with themselves. What is a person to do? That’s where the group comes in. If they express their belief that they are a good as opposed to a sinful person to members of the group, the group will show them otherwise. “Haven’t you ever told a lie?” they might ask. “Well, yes,” the good person says. “That means,” the group members point out, “that you are not a good person. You have sinned.” Keep in mind, this is an emotional response for it considers only church dogma; it does not weigh doctrine against the behaviors and patterns of goodness the person has demonstrated in their life. As music, preaching, friendly banter and stories of the church begin to replace the person’s subjectivity of goodness with stories of sinfulness, the person is crushed by the group dynamic erasing their cognitive dissonance. They are not good. They are a sinner. The church wins.
If, however, the person finds the strength to stand up against the emotional narrative of the church, they may realize that it is not as simple as the church makes it sound. The church speaks in the emotional tone of universal imperatives—all human beings are sinful. Why? Because the Bible tells them so. At the heart of all human conflict lies the sin of Adam and Eve. But what if our person now realizes that life is a process that is filled with good things as well as bad things. Maybe a person who told a lie can still be a good person if they decide not to lie anymore. Maybe a person’s life is redeemed by the amount of good they do overall even though they have on occasion done something wrong. Maybe, just maybe, the church is wrong. Suddenly, the Bible is seen through a new lens of human goodness and not just sinfulness. When this happens, they may begin to realize the religious narrative they have been fed is wrong. If they become a part of a Christian humanist group and they start reinforcing this new narrative, they may again experience cognitive dissonance, but it is examined in a different way. It is not that the Bible and the narrative about Jesus and Jesus’ teaching are worthless. It is rather a matter that they have become more human and hence, much more relevant. Human beings can take heed of Jesus’ words “Go and sin no more.” Once again, cognitive dissonance is eased, but in its place, conscience comes into being, the moral impulse based upon critical thinking more than emotional appeal.
All of us at one time or the other have experienced cognitive dissonance. All of us know what it means to be in conflict with ourselves. I really like chocolate chip cookies, but I am overweight. When I am near one, I experience cognitive dissonance. A person smokes cigarettes but knows they are bad for their health. They experience cognitive dissonance. A youth is told to steal even though they know it is wrong. They experience cognitive dissonance. A person is given a gun and told to kill even though they think killing is wrong. They experience cognitive dissonance. A good person is told they are a sinner. They experience cognitive dissonance.
Emotions provide us a powerful way to rationalize cognitive dissonance and attempt to erase the tension, but too often this is the path of least resistance. It is an easy way out that does not fully resolve dissonance. We know in our hearts that smoking is not good for us; we just pretend it’s not by covering up that which is reasonable with emotional rationalizations. We know that killing is wrong, but as a society we have created a host of scenarios ground in emotional appeals to individual rights, patriotism, loyalty, etc., which allow us to ease the conflict even though the dissonance is not fully resolved. However, if we were to look at this issue a little more rationally, we may discover that there is a value to the conflict that comes with cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance results when beliefs and behaviors come into conflict with one another. That can be quite disturbing, and we don’t like it. But what if we listened to the conflict? What would happen if we reasoned about it, examined it and engaged others in a frank and fair discussion of it? If the discomfort created by cognitive dissonance were given to rational scrutiny, it may be that such subjective conflict would become a moment where we not only learn about ourselves but those who are friends, family, and fellow citizens.
Take for example my love of chocolate chip cookies. I could discuss this with others who are overweight and love chocolate chip cookies. What would be the result of that discussion? I doubt it would stiffen my resolve to not eat chocolate chip cookies. Why? Because too often people are overweight because they love food, and their love of food becomes an excuse to rationalize eating. Rather than looking at the problem of eating cookies and discussing it rationally, my group would come up with emotional rationalizations that “justify” eating cookies. “Yes, but they taste so good. One cookie isn’t going to hurt (knowing full well that one will lead to many).” “Well, I just joined a gym so I can work off the calories.” Look at the nature of these explanations. They are filled with avoidance that hides the issue. The issue is this, being overweight is hard on one’s health and too often, overweight people have other problems like high blood pressure and diabetes. Will eating chocolate chip cookies improve one’s health? Ouch! Cognitive dissonance. which allows us to ease the conflict even though the dissonance is not fully resolved. However, if we were to look at this issue a little more rationally, we may discover that there is a value to the conflict that comes with cognitive dissonance. Cognitive dissonance results when beliefs and behaviors come into conflict with one another. That is disturbing, and we don’t like it. But what if we listened to the conflict? What would happen if we reasoned about it, examined it, and engaged others in a frank and fair discussion of it? If the discomfort created by cognitive dissonance were given to rational scrutiny, the subjective conflict might become a moment where we not only learn about ourselves but those who are friends, family, and fellow citizens.
Rather than looking at the problem of eating these cookies and discussing it rationally, my group would come up with emotional rationalizations that “justify” eating the cookies.
Even those who are my friends may give me cookies because they know I love them. If so, it is up to me how many I eat. However, what if I discussed this with my wife and—imagine this—my health care provider? One thing I know is that cognitive dissonance would not be resolved through emotional tactics that rationalize it away. It would be addressed head on in a measured and reasonable fashion. Here is how the body works; here is what happens when you eat chocolate chip cookies, and if you persist, this is what you can expect. These are the facts, now what do you want to do about them? My experience is that there are two extremes. The one advocates complete abstinence. The other suggests that one create “cheat days.” You know, my birthday, Christmas, and other holidays when eating chocolate chip cookies within reason ( 1 or 2) is ok. The former is rarely helpful, but if after discussion we arrive at the latter, it becomes much more persuasive. I love chocolate chip cookies, but they are not good for me, so moderation is much more probable. The cognitive dissonance is not erased, but it is reasonably resolved.
The thing to note is that the well-being of being human rests with listening to those who may at one point intensify cognitive dissonance while providing a more measured and well-reasoned way to resolve it. If we associate only with like-minded people, unhealthy and socially harmful behaviors may never be resolved for they aid us in emotionally hiding that which we need to think about. The things we believe, the values we hold and the behaviors we engage in are aided when others get involved and help us to think about the principles we embrace in a more meaningful and rational way. This does not mean that people who disagree or think differently are right simply because they disagree. Rather, it means that they provide us with a way of stepping back, shedding what may be harmful emotions and looking more clearly at the issues we are examining. We may never agree completely with those who think differently, but the value of successful living is not found in agreement; it is found in the ability to entertain difference. It is by examining our cognitive dissonance in the light of difference that more meaningful ways of living present themselves. This is how we learn and advance as individuals, as families and as a community.
We are emotional creatures and will never exist without emotions influencing our life. However, emotions must be informed by a meaningful discussion of our beliefs and behaviors, which allows us to address our internal conflict as individuals and as a society. If we do that—if we refuse to erase our cognitive dissonance with emotional rationalization—we will embrace difference, not because we agree with it, but because it gives us a way of looking at ourselves, the beliefs we hold, the values we share and the dreams we dream. We may never agree fully with those with whom we disagree, but we will change and if that change is based upon a meaningful and frank discussion of our subjectivity and the subjectivity of our group, the conflict becomes a moral compass that may lead us to a better understanding of ourselves, others, and the world in which we live.