Seminar Paper

Psychological Theories (WI001235)

Cognitive Dissonance Theory – Implications for Leaders

Examiner: Regina Dutz

Chair of Research and Science Management
(Prof. Dr. Claudia Peus)
Technical University of Munich
Arcisstrasse 21 · 80333 Munich · Germany

Submitted By: Ralph Egon Hartung Jimenez

Luisenstrasse 61a · 80798 Munich · Germany
Matriculation Number 03654248

Submitted On: 28.07.2021

 2

Inhalt

Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Theory Review ........................................................................................................................................ 3

4-Step Process ..................................................................................................................................... 4

Models of Cognitive Dissonance Theory............................................................................................ 4

Self-Consistency Model of CDT..................................................................................................... 4

Self-Affirmation Model of CDT ..................................................................................................... 5

Aversive Consequences Model of CDT.......................................................................................... 5

Self-Standards Model of CDT ........................................................................................................ 5

Action-Based Model of CDT .......................................................................................................... 6

Self-Regulation and Ego Depletion ................................................................................................ 6

Emotional Dissonance..................................................................................................................... 7

Key Concepts of CDT ......................................................................................................................... 7

Causes of Cognitive Dissonance ..................................................................................................... 7

Moderators of the Dissonance Arousal and Reduction Process ...................................................... 7

Strategies to Reduce Dissonance .................................................................................................... 8

Implications and Learnings for Management ......................................................................................... 8

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................................. 9

References ......................................................................................Fehler! Textmarke nicht definiert.

 3

Introduction

When receiving feedback, employees whose self-rating differs from the received

critique are more likely to trivialize the received feedback (Brett & Atwater, 2001). This is vital

information for people in leading positions who aim to get the best performance from their

employees. However, it is even more important to understand the psychological processes

leading to feedback rejection.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory (CDT) is a concept first coined by Leon Festinger (1957).

The author describes cognitive dissonance as the negative affective state of mind that arises

from a discrepancy between two cognitions a person holds. This person is then motivated to

reduce their cognitive dissonance by changing their believes or attitudes towards one of the

conflicting cognitions to achieve a more positive state of mind.

In the example presented above, a person receiving negative feedback but with a

positive self-rating will experience cognitive discrepancy, leading to cognitive dissonance. To

reduce the negative state of mind, the person trivializes the feedback. This action allows the

person to keep their high self-rating. Therefore, CDT becomes a central psychological theory

to explain the behavior of people on a day-to-day basis and in a working environment.

In the following pages, I will give an overview of the theories and models surrounding

CDT. Furthermore, I will give an outlook on what learnings leaders could take from CDT and

explain briefly how it could be affecting remote work.

Theory Review

CDT is one of the most influential theories of the past century, inspiring many

researchers and experiments across the years (Fischer et al., 2008). This development has led

to an evolution of the CDT concept and the creation of different models to explain the

intricacies of CDT. In this part, I will describe the 4-Step process as described by Festinger
 4

(1957) and will continue to address the different CDT models described by Hinojosa et al.

(2017). Furthermore, I will include the concepts of self-regulation and emotional dissonance.

In the end, I will summarize the causes of cognitive dissonance and the strategies used to reduce

them.

4-Step Process

The CDT core process can be divided into four steps (Hinojosa et al., 2017): first

cognitive discrepancy, second dissonance, third motivation, and fourth discrepancy reduction.

Cognitive discrepancy refers to the conflict between two or more cognitions. A cognition as

defined by Festinger (1957), is any mental representation or knowledge of one’s behavior, this

definition can include any attitude or belief. This tension between cognitions generates a

negative affective state of mind called dissonance. A person experiencing dissonance feels

uncomfortable and is therefore motivated to reduce the discrepancy between the affected

cognitions. To reduce the discrepancy a person might change their beliefs or attitudes so that

the cognitions are more aligned. This reduces the dissonance and generates a more positive

state of mind.

Models of Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Self-Consistency Model of CDT

Aronson (1969) introduced a self-consistency model. It describes the arousal of

dissonance when a cognition differs from the view on holds of one-self. A person is supposed

to seek consistency in their beliefs and their doings. A break from this rule would generate

cognitive discrepancy and thus lead to dissonance. Therefore, self-esteem becomes a regulator

for the effort to reduce the discrepancy. High self-esteem leads to higher dissonance and thus

to a larger effort to reduce the cognitive discrepancy, than that of people with low self-esteem.

An example of high dissonance arousal could be that of a judge running a red light, generating

a conflict between a person with traditionally high moral standards and breaking the law.
 5

Self-Affirmation Model of CDT

The self-affirmation model from Steele (1988) focuses on the positive self-concept.

Dissonance arises when the positive self-concept is attacked, and dissonance is reduced when

the self-concept is affirmed. Instead of changing an attitude, a person might trivialize the

cognition threatening the self-concept (Simon et al., 1995). An example could be that of a high

executive being accused by a subordinate of rude behavior. Instead of acknowledging the

possibility of not being a good manager, he or she trivializes the feedback received.

Aversive Consequences Model of CDT

Another view on CDT was given by (Cooper & Fazio, 1984), who depicted that

cognitive dissonance arises when the subject is responsible for aversive consequences. In the

case that the consequences of the person’s actions are positive, they experience no dissonance.

An example could be the hiring of a new recruit. If the performance of the new employee is

good, the hiring manager is likely to laud themselves, in the case that performance is bad, they

will engage in discrepancy reduction and might attribute the lacking performance to the

difficulty of the hiring process.

Self-Standards Model of CDT

The self-standards model combines the models described above and predicts that people

will act according to the models depending on the context of the situation (Stone & Cooper,

2001). The authors argue that in the context where social norms are more important, the

aversive consequences model applies. In the case, however, that the personal standards become

relevant self-consistency predictions will hold more accurately, otherwise the self-affirmation

model will describe the outcomes of discrepancy reduction better.

 6

Action-Based Model of CDT

The action-based model by (Harmon-Jones et al., 2009) interprets cognitions as

tendencies to take action. In the case that an effective action conflicts with another tendency to

act, it generates dissonance. Furthermore, the authors explain that a greater dissonance

reduction will lead to greater effective action, while on the other hand having a low level of

dissonance will lead to lower effective action. The reason for this phenomenon is that

increasing effort on a task helps to reduce dissonance because if you put in more effort, you

believe that the task is more relevant. For example, a person staying late at work, instead of

going back home to their family, might stay longer than necessary to achieve excellent results

to compensate for the missing time with their family.

Self-Regulation and Ego Depletion

Fischer et al. (2008) showed that there is a cognitive effort involved to avoid biases

arising from cognitive dissonance. In the case of confirmatory information-processing,

selecting information that confirms your beliefs, it could be observed that people showed ego

depletion, exhaustion of cognitive resources to oppose the bias. In other words, participants

who had to withstand the confirmation information-processing bias on a task were more likely

to be biased on the next task. For example, imagine a business analyst in a venture capital fund,

they are looking for the next big startup to fund to meet their quota. After long hours of work

on an investment opportunity with a promising product, the analyst decides to discard the

startup because of issues in their business plan. On the next opportunity, the analyst might

decide to support the startup, disregarding the business plan, because of their incredible team

and product. This concept shows that there are more layers to CDT and that the motivation to

reduce dissonance by an individual might vary from time to time.

 7

Emotional Dissonance

Pugh et al. (2011) added another layer to the concept of CDT. The authors approached

the topic of emotional dissonance; dissonance arising between the emotions held and the

emotions expressed. Their research showed that surface acting leads to emotional exhaustion

and lower job satisfaction, although the intensity might vary depending on the ability and

willingness to fake emotions of the person. A classic example of emotional dissonance is

people working as waiters, always having to smile and do right by the customer, regardless of

how rude they might be to them.

Key Concepts of CDT

Hinojosa et al. (2017) summarized the causes of dissonance, the moderators of

dissonance arousal, and the strategies to reduce dissonance into the concepts described below.

Causes of Cognitive Dissonance

The causes of cognitive dissonance are counterattitudinal behaviors, free choice, and

effort/behavioral commitment. Counterattitudinal behaviors refer to the conflict between an

action and the belief or an attitude of a person (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959). Free choice refers

to the desire of making the perfect choice between a set of options. The impossibility of finding

the perfect fit solution leads to dissonance (Brehm & Cohen, 1962). Effort/behavioral

commitment explains that people increase their support for an action, a decision, or an attitude

to show consistency (Aronson & Mills, 1959).

Moderators of the Dissonance Arousal and Reduction Process

Moderators for dissonance arousal and discrepancy reduction are responsibility for

choice, similar alternatives, and leading alternatives. Responsibility for choice refers to the

increase in discrepancy reduction when a person is responsible for the outcomes of a decision

made (Bobocel & Meyer, 1994). Similar alternatives (like spreading alternatives), on the other
 8

hand, is a concept that predicts that a person who has to choose between similar alternatives,

will engage in higher discrepancy reduction after making a choice (Brehm, 1956). Finally,

leading alternatives explains how people will engage in more selective information-processing,

if there is a leading alternative pre-choice, which is in line with research from Russo et al.

(1996).

Strategies to Reduce Dissonance

To reduce discrepancy Hinojosa et al. (2017) select the following governing strategies:

attitude change, behavior adjustment, escalation of commitment, trivialization, and selective

information-processing. Attitude change describes how, to reduce dissonance, a person

changes an attitude generating conflict with a behavior. Behavior adjustment refers to the

adjustment in a behavior to be in alignment with another value or attitude. Attitude change and

behavior adjustment are in line with Festinger’s (1957) main theory. Escalation of commitment

describes the increase in effort to justify a decision that has already been made (Staw & Ross,

1978). Trivialization, on the other hand, describes the effect of a person disregarding or

diminishing the importance of a conflicting cognition (Simon et al., 1995). Furthermore,

selective information-processing describes the behavior of people taking only information into

account that supports a previous decision (Russo et al., 1996).

Implications and Learnings for Management

Academic research on the subject includes the influence of CDT on organizational

behavior, human resources, strategy, organization theory, and entrepreneurship. The scope of

topics addressed by CDT makes it necessary for leaders to take into consideration how

cognitive dissonance might affect their employees. A clear example is the one mentioned in

the introduction of this paper: trivialization of performance feedback to reduce dissonance

(Brett & Atwater, 2001).

 9

In general terms I believe, a good manager will have to raise awareness of this

phenomenon to their employees. Especially in times of change or higher workloads, it will be

important to provide good reasons and support dismissive personnel to overcome aversive

reactions due to cognitive dissonance. Thus, permitting the employees to justify the increased

effort and workload.

I argue that another important aspect to consider is expectation management. To inhibit

the development of dissonance among employees because of unmet expectations a good leader

will be transparent to their employees about their future and the companies’ future.

Furthermore, recognition of work has to be made equivalently among employees, such that it

does not generate unequal perceptions of individual work performance.

I think, however, that the most important aspect is the development of a company

culture and company goals aligned with the individual’s values and goals. This will allow

employees to feel more meaningfulness in their work, providing a more consistent lifestyle and

thus allowing them to be more resilient against difficult times at work.

According to CDT, an employee with a high self-image that feels distracted while

working remotely, might work longer hours to compensate for the distraction and still achieve

good results for the day. This situation might increase burn-out rates due to an increase in

working hours in unaware companies, as described by Stahl (2021).

Conclusion

CDT continues to be a very influential psychological theory that applies to modern

work-related problems. Leaders will do good to take the expectations and values of employees,

and how they change over time into consideration. Thus, allowing managers to generate a

sustainable work environment for employees, who will find themselves doing more meaningful

work.
 10

References

Aronson, E. (1969). The theory of cognitive dissonance: A current perspective. Academic

Press(4), 1-34.

Aronson, E., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology(59), 177–181.

Bobocel, D. R., & Meyer, J. P. (1994). Escalating commitment to a failing course of action:

Separating the roles of choice and justification. Journal of Applied Psychology(79), 360–

363.

Brehm, J. W. (1956). Postdecision changes in the desirability of alternatives. Journal of

Abnormal and Social Psychology(52), 384–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0041006

Brehm, J. W., & Cohen, A. R. (1962). Explorations in cognitive dissonance. Wiley.

Brett, J. F., & Atwater, L. E. (2001). 360° feedback: Accuracy, reactions, and perceptions of

usefulness. Journal of Applied Psychology(86(5)), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-

9010.86.5.930

Cooper, J., & Fazio, R. H. (1984). A new look at dissonance theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),

Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 229–266). Erlbaum.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.

Festinger, L., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance.

Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology(58), 203-210.

Fischer, P., Frey, D., Peus, C., & Kastenmüller, A. (2008). The theory of cognitive

dissonance: State of the science and directions for future research. In P. Meusburger, M.

Welker, & Wunder E. (Eds.), Clashes of knowledge: Orthodoxies and heterodoxies in

science and religion (pp. 189–198). Springer Science + Business Media.

 11

Harmon-Jones, E., Amodio, D. M., & Harmon-Jones, C. (2009). Action-based model of

dissonance: A review, integration, and expansion of conceptions of cognitive conflict. In

M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 119–166). Elsevier.

Hinojosa, A. S., Gardner, W. L., Walker, H. J., Cogliser, C., & Gullifor, D. (2017). A review

of cognitive dissonance theory in management research. Journal of Management, 43(1),

170–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316668236

Pugh, S. D., Groth, M., & Hennig-Thurau, T. (2011). Willing and able to fake emotions: A

closer examination of the link between emotional dissonance and employee well-being.

The Journal of Applied Psychology, 96(2), 377–390. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021395

Russo, J. E., Medvec, V. H., & Meloy, M. G. (1996). The distortion of information during

decisions. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes(66), 102–110.

Simon, L., Greenberg, J., & Brehm, J. (1995). Trivialization: The forgotten mode of

dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology(68), 247–260.

Stahl, A. (2021). Post-pandemic burnout spurs the "great resignation" among workers.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashleystahl/2021/07/22/post-pandemic-burnout-spurs-the-

great-resignation-among-workers/?sh=34ebc4fd58b9

Staw, B. M., & Ross, J. (1978). Commitment to a policy decision: A multi-theoretical

perspective. Administrative Science Quarterly(23), 40-64.

Steele, C. M. (1988). The psychology of self-affirmation: Sustaining the integrity of the self.

Academic Press(21), 261-302.

Stone, J., & Cooper, J. (2001). A self-standards model of cognitive dissonance. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology(37), 228–243.