1

Cognitive Dissonance as a Motivational Strategy

Student’s Name

University

Course

Professor

Date
 2

Cognitive Dissonance as a Motivational Strategy

In the year 1957, Leon Festinger published made the first publication on cognitive

dissonance (Harmon-Jones & Mills, 2019). He referred to the term as the state of mental

discomfort a person gets as a result of conflicting attitudes, beliefs, or values. it is a form of guilt

that occurs when a person does something that they know they are against (Harmon-Jones &

Mills, 2019). In recent studies, it has been discovered that cognitive dissonance can also be

induced to change one’s attitude towards a subject. This paper will discuss such an instance

specifically using this theory as an advocate for international students for the Board to allow

them to use a room at the local community center to have extra English lessons. Every individual

has a right to access public facilities and the use of cognitive dissonance to allow for this is

shown.

In this case, I would use the approach of inducing cognitive dissonance so as to trigger

guilt on the Board in an attempt to sway their beliefs. The board was normally biased on who

would get access to the community center and mostly discriminated against foreigners. These

were just students seeking to broaden their fluency in the English language, being from countries

where this was not their first language. The board made the process of acquiring a permit to use

the room very lengthy and almost impossible. In a meeting requested by the group, I was chosen

to represent them and try to acquire access to the room.

During the meeting, I focussed on the 14th Amendment, which the Board had been

frontline supporters of implementing. In the Amendment, segregation of learners on the basis of

race and other factors had been outlawed (Konvitz, 2018). Therefore, constantly referring to the

clause while trying to explain why the group should be allowed to use the room for extra lessons

triggered dissonance with the Board. This was considering the Board’s constant statements in
 3

support of education for all and the fact that the community center had been built to provide an

avenue for the locals to meet and discuss matters to better the community. According to

Festinger, people are driven by social forces as well as forces in their personalities (Harmon-

Jones & Mills, 2019). The Board was made to realize that meetings like the groups were meant

to remove the language barrier and foster oneness.

For the Board to relieve their dissonance, engagement in a comparing exercise was

performed. They were to try and come up with justifications for either allowing the group to use

the room or denying the opportunity. This was meant to add more supportive beliefs to

outnumber the dissonant ones. After a while, the Board realized that they had no concrete reason

to deny the group access to the room provided it was not in use. In the end, they were all for it.

When faced with a choice between two options, human beings tend to increase their evaluation

of their choice and lower that which they now reject, solely because they see their final choice as

better, and ironically, the more they preferred the rejected choice, the more they devalue it after

they make a different choice (Cooper, 2019).

The Board was compelled to several ethical considerations when making the decision.

One was whether to stick to their personal beliefs or do the right thing and uphold equality when

allowing the use of the town center. In truth, the Board was denying the use of the room with

bias because the group consisted of international students who were not native to the region.

They were also challenged whether to listen to reason or stand their ground considering they

were the authority and had the final say.

As the representative, I was torn on whether to incorporate guilt so that the Board would

reason with the facts brought forward. To promote justice and equality, the Board had to be made

to see that their previous decisions were not fair and were biased. Thus, the method used could
 4

be justified and be considered appropriate for the occasion. Moreover, to champion for the rights

of the minority, positive manipulation can be justified (Cooper, 2019). The Board just needed to

see the group’s perspective and also look into their perspective to compare the two. By doing so,

the Board is allowed to make a better-informed choice that ends up being for the good of all.

Harmon Jones suggests that people’s beliefs are maintained better when they do not lead to

conflict (Cancino Montecinos, 2020).

In conclusion, cognitive dissonance not only occurs on its own but can also be induced.

However, this induction should be aimed at righting wrongs. Cognitive dissonance can be

reduced by inducing the initial affective reaction. This means that the conflict between what to

do and what one believes in can be removed by both thoughts being critically assessed to

determine one’s choice of action. Provoking dissonance on the Board’s minds enabled the group

to get access to the room and allowed for them to filter their beliefs and stick to the morally right

choice.
 5

References

Cancino Montecinos, S. (2020). New perspectives on cognitive dissonance theory.

Cooper, J. (2019). Cognitive Dissonance: Where We’ve Been and Where We’re Going.

International Review of Social Psychology, 32(1). https://doi.org/10.5334/irsp.277

Harmon-Jones, E., & Mills, J. (2019). An introduction to cognitive dissonance theory and an

overview of current perspectives on the theory. In Cognitive dissonance: Reexamining a

pivotal theory in psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0000135-001

Konvitz, M. R. (2018). The Fourteenth Amendment. Fundamental Liberties of a Free People,

34–39. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781351310680-7