Reference no: EM131151974
Module DQ 1
Does the theory of cognitive dissonance viably extend to include justification of effort as a product of cognitive dissonance? Why or why not? How could any cognitive dissonance created by justification of effort be reduced?
The theory of cognitive dissonance tells states that cognitive dissonance occurs when a person experiences an uncomfortable tension that stems from holding conflicting thoughts. Cognitive dissonance can also occur when there is a discrepancy between a person's attitude towards something and their behavior. Cognitive dissonance does include justification of effort as a product to cognitive dissonance. People often use external justification to defend why they thought or acted a certain way that is against their own beliefs (Chiou& Wan, 2007). They believe that it is not the person himself or herself, but instead the circumstances that created the situation that goes against their beliefs.
When a person tries to justify why they thought or acted a certain way that is against their personal beliefs this in itself causes cognitive dissonance. The more personal responsibility a person takes for their thoughts or behavior, the greater cognitive dissonance a person feels.
When personal responsibility is taken for thoughts or behaviors the more difficult it is to use external justification to justify why they acted the way they did. There are a number of ways to change the cognitive dissonance created by this situation. A person can decide to change their behavior to match their own beliefs or a person can change what they believe. People that feel they have put a lot of effort into the cause of the conflicting thought or behavior have a harder time changing their behavior and will often resort to changing their beliefs to match the conflicting thought or behavior. People that do not feel they have put as much effort in will more often resort to changing the behavior (Chiou& Wan, 2007). Both options have consequences and an individual has to make the conscious decision as to which option they will take.
References:
Chiou, W., & Wan, C. (2007). Using cognitive dissonance to induce adolescents' escaping from the claw of online gaming: The roles of personal responsibility and justification of cost. Cyberpsychology& Behavior, 10(5), 663-670. Retrieved from: https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=psyh&AN=2007-15414-007&site=ehost-live&scope=site
1 posts
Module 2 DQ 1
Does the theory of cognitive dissonance viably extend to include justification of effort as a product of cognitive dissonance? Why or why not? How could any cognitive dissonance created by justification of effort be reduced?
Cognitive dissonance is a contradiction between what a person's beliefs and how a person behaves (Nevid, 2013). The theory of cognitive dissonance further suggests there is a direct correlation between situations (experiences) that may contribute to the potential to compromise standards due to reasoning. For example, a parent who takes food from a store without paying for it beacuse he or she needs to feed a child, but does not believe in stealing, justifies the action based on the circumstance. The influence of affect (emotion) stressors appears to be significant in altering attitudes and/or change of position altogether becomes possible depending on the circumstances ( Martime, Milland, & Olive, 2013).
According to an article on cognitive dissonance, the cause of justification develops out of the individual's perception that makes a person feel responsible for acting in the best interest of a situation (Jachro, Berkman, & Lieberman, 2011). Contraindications suggests that shifting positions are attributes of effort filtered by emotion that appear to override negative consequences. Mental orientation include a combination of internal analysis and external experiences which may not anticipate judgment based on circumstance. Neurological research studies of rationalization reports adjustments in attitude is a by product of decision making when individuals are faced by difficult decisions. Regulating emotion is suggested to reduce arousal that produces conflicting attitudes and actions (Jachro, Berkman, &, Lieberman, 2011).
References
Jarcho, J. M., Berkman, E. T., & Lieberman, M. D. (2011). The neural basis of rationalization: cognitive dissonance reduction during decision-making. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 6(4), 460-467.
Nevid, S. J. (2013). Psychology concepts and applications (4th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN-13: 978-1285-92216-4
Martinie, M., Milland, L., & Olive, T. (2013). Some Theoretical Considerations on Attitude, Arousal and Affect during Cognitive Dissonance. Social & Personality Psychology Compass, 7(9), 680-688. doi:10.1111/spc3.12