Cognitive Dissonance

Definition

Cognitive Dissonance refers to the situation when one becomes aware that what they believe to be true is conflicting with what they know is happening in the real world, either through their own actions or through the actions of others. It also refers to the uncomfortable feeling that arises from holding logically incompatible beliefs.

For example, one may feel that taking an innocent life is an evil act, and yet also support a war effort in which innocent lives are taken. The result is an uncomfortable feeling during which the two beliefs are in conflict.

On order to reconcile the discomfort of cognitive dissonance, a person may go to great lengths to avoid situations or resist information which directly challenges their views.

For example:

A loving spouse may refuse to believe, despite mounting evidence, that their partner is cheating on them, and will come up with all kinds of excuses and reasonings to explain his/her unusual behavior.

A horrific crime has taken place which has outraged the nation, and blame for the crime has been pointed at a particular individual. Every day new stories arise from neighbours, friends and relatives that reinforce the belief that Individual X is “evil”. Later, evidence emerges which points towards Individual X’s innocence. In spite of the conflicting evidence available, there remain many that remain convinced of Individual X guilt and will refuse to listen to anyone challenging that belief. They start to accuse those presenting the contrary evidence as supporting the “murderer” and not respecting the suffering of the victim.

It has also been observed that if a person finds themselves engaging in activities which are in opposition to what they believe, they will be more willing to change their belief or adopt new beliefs to suit the situation, rather than change their actions.

For example:

A person may believe that hurting another person is wrong. They find themselves in conflict with another person, and in order to engage in the conflict and harm the other person, they amend their belief:

E.g. An offender beats their partner. To remove feelings of uneasiness, they justify their actions by arguing that the victim engaged in behaviors which “deserved” the offense. (“She got what was coming to her.”)

Another example of this kind of reasoning can also be found in the Milgram Experiments (see Obedience to Authority).

A follower of a religious cult may continue to hold to the belief that their Leader’s prediction were right, even after the prediction failed to materialize as the Leader said it would. New beliefs are formed to “explain away” the problems arising out of the original belief.

A great example of this is “The Great Disappointment”.

Back in 1843, a Baptist preacher by the name of William Miller prophesied that Jesus Christ would return to the earth. This prediction was based on Daniel 8:14:

And he answered him, “For two thousand three hundred evenings and mornings; then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state.”

Miller’s first prophesy was that the event would take place sometime between 21 March 1843 and 21 March 1884. When Jesus Christ did not appear during this period, most followers retained their faith in Miller as a new date was set based on the Karaite Jewish calendar: 18 April 1884.

April 18 passed without incident. Following much discussion, the conclusion made was that the real date was “the tenth day of the seventh month of the present year”, which according to Kariate Jewish calendar, was 22 October 1844.

October 22 arrived and when Jesus Christ still failed to appear, Miller’s prophesy earned the title of “The Great Disappointment”.

While many followers were left disillusioned, others found new ways to explain the lack of appearance by Jesus Christ. Followers ascertained that the 22 October date was indeed correct, but that the “sanctuary” referred to in Daniel 8:14 was “not the earth or the church, but the sanctuary in heaven”. The conclusion being that 22 October 1884 saw not the Second Coming of Jesus Christ on earth, but that date marked a heavenly event.

Experiments conducted in the field of Cognitive Dissonance:

There have been several experiments held to understand the complex nature of cognitive dissonance. These include:

Studies where people are asked to behave in ways that are contrary to their beliefs.

Studies of how we seek out information that is harmonious with our current views rather than information which challenges our views, so to avoid the feeling of cognitive dissonance.

Studies of how people respond when confronted with information that challenges long-held beliefs and attitudes.

Postdecisional studies: after a decision has is made, the opinions surrounding of the rejected alternatives are studied.

Cognitive Dissonance in Marketing

So how does this apply to marketing?

People go to great lengths to find reasons to justify decisions/actions. If a marketer can provide customers with compelling evidence or reasons that they are making the right choice in their buying decision, the deal becomes easier to close. These can include scientific data, quotes from experts and research data.

An effective marketer will also present objections to the product in his copy and systematically refute each objection.