scholarly journals Choosing what we like vs liking what we choose: How choice-induced preference change might actually be instrumental to decision-making

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Lee ◽  
Jean Daunizeau
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Behavioral Experiment ◽  
Preference Change ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Value Judgments ◽  
Traditional Design ◽  
Subjective Value ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

ABSTRACTFor more than 60 years, it has been known that people report higher (lower) subjective values for items after having selected (rejected) them during a choice task. This phenomenon is coined “choice-induced preference change” or CIPC, and its established interpretation is that of “cognitive dissonance” theory. In brief, if people feel uneasy about their choice, they later convince themselves, albeit not always consciously, that the chosen (rejected) item was actually better (worse) than they had originally estimated. While this might make sense from a pragmatic psychological standpoint, it is challenging from a theoretical evolutionary perspective. This is because such a cognitive mechanism might yield irrational biases, whose adaptive fitness would be unclear. In this work, we assume that CIPC is mostly driven by the refinement of option value representations that occurs during (and not after) difficult choices. This makes CIPC the epiphenomenal outcome of a cognitive process that is instrumental to the decision. Critically, our hypothesis implies novel predictions about how observed CIPC should relate to two specific meta-cognitive processes, namely: choice confidence and subjective certainty regarding pre-choice value judgments. We test these predictions in a behavioral experiment where participants rate the subjective value of food items both before and after choosing between equally valued items; we augment this traditional design with reports of choice confidence and subjective certainty about value judgments. The results confirm our predictions and provide evidence against the standard post-choice cognitive dissonance reduction explanation. We then discuss the relevance of our work in the context of the existing debate regarding the putative cognitive mechanisms underlying cognitive dissonance reduction.

scholarly journals The psychophysiological correlates of cognitive dissonance

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Gavin W. Ploger ◽  
Johnanna Dunaway ◽  
Patrick Fournier ◽  
Stuart Soroka
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Emotional Regulation ◽  
Affective Response ◽  
Selective Exposure ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Physiological Approach ◽  
Psychophysiological Correlates ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Future Work ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

Abstract This preregistered study uses a combination of physiological measures to explore both the activation and reduction components of cognitive dissonance theory. More precisely, we use skin conductance to identify dissonance arousal, a short-term affective response to counter-attitudinal stimuli, and then use heart rate variability to measure dissonance reduction, which reflects longer-term patterns of emotional regulation and information processing. Our preliminary tests find weak evidence of dissonance arousal and no evidence of dissonance reduction using this physiological approach. We consequently reconsider (albeit optimistically) the use of physiology in future work on cognitive dissonance. We also discuss the implications of our findings for selective exposure and motivated reasoning.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory After 50 Years of Development

2007 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eddie Harmon-Jones ◽  
Cindy Harmon-Jones
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
The Self ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ◽  
Original Theory ◽  
Neural Processes ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Self Consistency ◽  
Theoretical Developments ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

Abstract. Research and theoretical developments on the theory of cognitive dissonance are reviewed. After considering the self-consistency, self-affirmation, and aversive consequences revisions, the authors review research that has challenged each of the revisions and that supports the original version of the theory. Then, the authors review the action-based model of dissonance, which accepts the original theory's proposal that a sufficient cognitive inconsistency causes dissonance and extends the original theory by proposing why cognitive inconsistency prompts dissonance. Finally, the authors present results from experiments examining predictions derived from the action-based model and neural processes involved in dissonance reduction.

Dissonance and Attitude Change

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeff Stone ◽  
John J. Taylor
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
21St Century ◽  
Attitude Change ◽  
The Self ◽  
Cognitive Mechanisms ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ◽  
Early 21St Century ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
And Behavior

Cognitive dissonance theory (CDT) was first introduced by Leon Festinger. Cognitive dissonance is the process by which people detect an inconsistency between cognitions, such as attitudes, beliefs, and behavior. When individuals become aware of an inconsistency between cognitions, they experience a state of psychological discomfort that motivates them to restore consistency. Factors such as the importance of the cognitions and the magnitude of the discomfort play a role in determining how people restore consistency. Festinger described three primary ways people can reduce dissonance: change a cognition; add new cognitions; or change the importance of the inconsistent cognitions. Many early studies showed that when people are unable to change their behavior, they will change their attitudes to be more in line with the inconsistent behavior. Over the years, CDT has undergone many challenges and revisions. Some revisions focus on the importance of cognitions about the self in the processes by which dissonance motivates attitude change. Others focused on the consequences of the behavior and various cognitive mechanisms that underlie the experience of dissonance. In the early 21st century, research has examined the underlying motivation for dissonance-induced attitude and behavior change, and how people prefer to reduce dissonance once it is present. And, as with the entire field of social psychology, dissonance researchers are also raising concerns about the replicability of classic dissonance effects and focusing their attention on the need to improve the methods the field uses to test predictions going forward.

Influence of Product Preference on Dissonance Reduction

1967 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 286-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonard A. Losciuto ◽  
Robert Perloff
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Product Preference ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

As predicted by cognitive dissonance theory, people choosing between desirable products subsequently rated the chosen product as more desirable and the unchosen as less desirable. They had also greater retention of written material about the chosen alternative; though this trend was not statistically significant.

Cognitive Dissonance and Internalization of Social Norms: Effects of Threat Severity on Children

1978 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 355-362 ◽  
Author(s):  
Piero Amerio ◽  
Ellenis Bosotti ◽  
Franca Amione
Keyword(s):  
Social Norms ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
School Children ◽  
Social Behaviour ◽  
Reduction Process ◽  
Self Awareness ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ◽  
Cognitive Consistency ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

The cognitive consistency in social behaviour was analysed in ninety pre-school children within the context of the cognitive dissonance theory in the forced compliance paradigm. The aim of the experiment was to ascertain the effect of the dissonance reduction process on the internalization of social norms in a resistance-to-deviation situation creating dissonance. The procedure involved tempting a child to engage in counterattitudinal behaviour (not playing with the desired toy). The child was given either a sufflcient (severe threat of punishment) or insufficient (mild threat) justification for not performing the activity. As predicted from dissonance theory, the smaller the threat, the greater the dissonance and it was reduced by derogating the forbidden toy. Dissonance reduction implications in socialization are validated: the children who were threatened least were the most likely to internalize a norm not to play. Self-awareness processes are involved.

Can Cognitive Dissonance Theory Explain Consumer Behavior?

1969 ◽  
Vol 33 (4) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sadaomi Oshikawa
Keyword(s):  
Consumer Behavior ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Cognitive Dissonance Theory ◽  
Dissonance Theory ◽  
Possible Cause ◽  
Dissonance Reduction

Cognitive dissonance theory is applicable to very limited areas of consumer behavior according to the author. Published findings in support of the theory are equivocal; they fail to show that cognitive dissonance is the only possible cause of observed “dissonance-reducing” behavior. Experimental evidences are examined and their weaknesses pointed out by the author to justify his position. He also provides suggestions regarding the circumstances under which dissonance reduction may be useful in increasing the repurchase probability of a purchased brand.

scholarly journals Country-of-origin misclassification awareness and consumers’ behavioral intentions

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (3) ◽  
pp. 354-376 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Meltem Cakici ◽  
Paurav Shukla
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Dissonance ◽  
Behavioral Intentions ◽  
Country Of Origin ◽  
Purchase Intentions ◽  
Product Knowledge ◽  
Negative Effects ◽  
Content Type ◽  
High Affinity ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Dissonance Theory

Purpose Extant research shows that consumers regularly misclassify country-of-origin (COO) associated with brands. The purpose of this paper is to examine changes in behavioral intentions (i.e. purchase intentions for self and others and brand judgments) when consumers are made aware that they have misclassified the COO and then are informed of the brand’s correct origin. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory, the authors also explore the moderating roles of consumer affinity, animosity, and product knowledge. Design/methodology/approach Two experiments test the direct and moderating effects of COO misclassification awareness on behavioral intentions. Findings The findings show detrimental effects of misclassification on behavioral intentions when consumers have high affinity with misclassified COO. Moreover, the experiments demonstrate a significantly greater decrease in behavioral intentions among experts than novices in the low-affinity condition and the reverse effect in the high-affinity condition. Practical implications The negative effects of COO misclassification on consumer behavioral intentions highlight the need for managers to proactively avoid misclassification. The findings should also aid managers in developing responsive marketing campaigns that consider consumer affinity, animosity, and level of product knowledge. Originality/value This research is the first to compare consumer behavioral responses before and after COO misclassification awareness. The study demonstrates that cognitive dissonance underpins the process of misclassification. It also contributes to COO literature by examining the interaction of consumer affinity and animosity with product knowledge and their influence on consumer behavior in the case of COO misclassification.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document