What do you think?
Rate this book
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance <> Paperback <> LeonFestinger <> StanfordUniversityPress
304 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1957
27 people are currently reading
2063 people want to read
About the author
Leon Festinger
16 books65 followersLeon Festinger was interested in science at a young age, and decided to pursue a career in psychology. He received his bachelor's degree from City College of New York and went on to Iowa State University for his master's degree and his Ph.D. (which he received in 1942). For the next several years he made his living teaching at different universities until he went to Stanford in 1955.
At Stanford, Festinger began to fully develop the idea he called cognitive dissonance. The original idea stemmed from his observation that people generally liked consistency in their daily lives. For example, some individuals always sit in the same seat on the train or bus when they commute to work, or always eat lunch in the same restaurant. Cognitive dissonance is a part of this need for consistence.
Essentially, Festinger explained, all people hold certain beliefs, and when they are asked to do something that runs counter to their beliefs, conflict arises. Cognitive dissonance comes into play when people try to reconcile the conflicting behaviors or ideas.
Cognitive dissonance soon became an important and much-discussed theory. Over the years it has generated considerable research, in part because it is one of a number of theories based on the idea that consistency of thought is a strong motivating factor in people.
Festinger continued his work at Stanford until 1968 when he returned to New York City to assume the Else and Hans Staudinger professorship at the New School for Social Research. He continued his research on cognitive dissonance as well as other behavioral issues. He was also active in professional organizations including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He continued to work until his death on February 11, 1989, from liver cancer. He was survived by his wife Trudy and four children.
Taken from the the Encyclopedia of Psychology
At Stanford, Festinger began to fully develop the idea he called cognitive dissonance. The original idea stemmed from his observation that people generally liked consistency in their daily lives. For example, some individuals always sit in the same seat on the train or bus when they commute to work, or always eat lunch in the same restaurant. Cognitive dissonance is a part of this need for consistence.
Essentially, Festinger explained, all people hold certain beliefs, and when they are asked to do something that runs counter to their beliefs, conflict arises. Cognitive dissonance comes into play when people try to reconcile the conflicting behaviors or ideas.
Cognitive dissonance soon became an important and much-discussed theory. Over the years it has generated considerable research, in part because it is one of a number of theories based on the idea that consistency of thought is a strong motivating factor in people.
Festinger continued his work at Stanford until 1968 when he returned to New York City to assume the Else and Hans Staudinger professorship at the New School for Social Research. He continued his research on cognitive dissonance as well as other behavioral issues. He was also active in professional organizations including the National Academy of Sciences and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He continued to work until his death on February 11, 1989, from liver cancer. He was survived by his wife Trudy and four children.
Taken from the the Encyclopedia of Psychology
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews
June 5, 2022
“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.”
― Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
============
This book is the academic counterpart, published by a university press, to the case study the author and his team did that resulted in the formulation of the concept of cognitive dissonance in the first place. (link below)
"Cognitive dissonance" is the mental (and emotional) stress, or discomfort, experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.
Most of us prefer to avoid this uncomfortable feeling when it comes to cherished values, especially in religion and politics. So we do our best to block out contradictory information and even indulge in what behavioral economists call "confirmation bias" in seeking out anecdotes and other information that support our already-held beliefs.
Naturally, the ubiquity of social media makes that even easier in enabling us to find groups online that already agree with this.
A common tactic, whether conscious or not, is compartmentalization, defined as follows...
"Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves."
I've seen this in very conservative religious believers, some of whom are even scientists, who are reluctant to apply their knowledge and reason to their religious belief systems, especially if they are based on sources they treat as authoritative, such as the Bible or Church doctrine.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
― Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
============
This book is the academic counterpart, published by a university press, to the case study the author and his team did that resulted in the formulation of the concept of cognitive dissonance in the first place. (link below)
"Cognitive dissonance" is the mental (and emotional) stress, or discomfort, experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time.
Most of us prefer to avoid this uncomfortable feeling when it comes to cherished values, especially in religion and politics. So we do our best to block out contradictory information and even indulge in what behavioral economists call "confirmation bias" in seeking out anecdotes and other information that support our already-held beliefs.
Naturally, the ubiquity of social media makes that even easier in enabling us to find groups online that already agree with this.
A common tactic, whether conscious or not, is compartmentalization, defined as follows...
"Compartmentalization is a subconscious psychological defense mechanism used to avoid cognitive dissonance, or the mental discomfort and anxiety caused by a person's having conflicting values, cognitions, emotions, beliefs, etc. within themselves."
I've seen this in very conservative religious believers, some of whom are even scientists, who are reluctant to apply their knowledge and reason to their religious belief systems, especially if they are based on sources they treat as authoritative, such as the Bible or Church doctrine.
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1...
Read
July 9, 2023I first heard of cognitive dissonance early in college. I haven’t taken the topic on directly until now, going back to the origins of this theory. What is cognitive dissonance? Professor Festinger explains that “two elements are dissonant if considering them alone, the obverse of one follows from the other.” Further, dissonance does not exist by itself, it must reflect two contrasting influences. What happens when observations or accumulated data are presented to challenge our preexisting beliefs? How do we react when offered new information? Do our beliefs change? What techniques can be used to manage our dissonance? These are among the ideas considered with Professor Festinger’s expert work, theory accompanied with data.
Unless we become reclusive hermits, which sometimes seems like a charming idea, cognitive dissonance surrounds and infuses our lives. It arises, for example, in dystopian relationships – especially where abuse is present – in religion, warfare, our workplace, our diets, and politics. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on mass phenomena. While I’ve previously read of the nineteenth century Millerite movement, I was not aware of the woman who claimed to receive written messages from the Guardians, residents of outer space, a mildly humorous tale. She and her small cult were subjected to cognitive dissonance when the promised spacecraft – sent to carry the group of believers away from a predicted global cataclysm – failed to appear . . . repeatedly.
Dissonance leads us to seek resolution. Moreover, we may carry a feeling of fear, or anxiety generally, then seek an explanation to justify that feeling. I imagine that many politicians exploit this phenomenon to notable success, first to gain support, second to conduct policy. Ever think about how America got involved in a war in Vietnam, or Russia in Ukraine, or America in Iraq, v. 2.0? The theory of cognitive dissonance provides insight into these misbegotten conflicts. We can easily lose our life, our savings, or our health, both emotional and physical, through cognitive dissonance, reason enough to be schooled on this topic.
An aside, I need to deliver a message to the collections manager at our state university main library. There’s far too much writing in this book, which I received via Inter-Library Loan – a rainbow of inks, pencils, and highlighting appeared densely in numerous sections. I’m guessing our overachieving scholars didn’t have time to read pages 212 through 259 since they were unmarked. I opened this volume to find a half dozen sticky notes placed throughout, and in various colors, and even a credit card receipt from a nail salon dated 2022.
Unless we become reclusive hermits, which sometimes seems like a charming idea, cognitive dissonance surrounds and infuses our lives. It arises, for example, in dystopian relationships – especially where abuse is present – in religion, warfare, our workplace, our diets, and politics. I particularly enjoyed the chapter on mass phenomena. While I’ve previously read of the nineteenth century Millerite movement, I was not aware of the woman who claimed to receive written messages from the Guardians, residents of outer space, a mildly humorous tale. She and her small cult were subjected to cognitive dissonance when the promised spacecraft – sent to carry the group of believers away from a predicted global cataclysm – failed to appear . . . repeatedly.
Dissonance leads us to seek resolution. Moreover, we may carry a feeling of fear, or anxiety generally, then seek an explanation to justify that feeling. I imagine that many politicians exploit this phenomenon to notable success, first to gain support, second to conduct policy. Ever think about how America got involved in a war in Vietnam, or Russia in Ukraine, or America in Iraq, v. 2.0? The theory of cognitive dissonance provides insight into these misbegotten conflicts. We can easily lose our life, our savings, or our health, both emotional and physical, through cognitive dissonance, reason enough to be schooled on this topic.
An aside, I need to deliver a message to the collections manager at our state university main library. There’s far too much writing in this book, which I received via Inter-Library Loan – a rainbow of inks, pencils, and highlighting appeared densely in numerous sections. I’m guessing our overachieving scholars didn’t have time to read pages 212 through 259 since they were unmarked. I opened this volume to find a half dozen sticky notes placed throughout, and in various colors, and even a credit card receipt from a nail salon dated 2022.
August 24, 2014
Not one of the easiest books I have ever read but it was highly interesting. I don't know exactly what I was expecting but there were a lot of studies that were outlined in detail. For me, those were hard to read through. But all-in-all I am glad I read the book. I had a limited understanding of cognitive dissonance when I started, but after reading, I realize the magnitude of the scope cognitive dissonance plays on our behavior and thoughts. If you start looking at the cognitive elements of your own or others, and start looking at the dissonant relationship between those elements, I think you can start to understand why change is so hard for people.
August 7, 2012
More people need to understand the power of cognitive dissonance.
July 16, 2018
This is the first time when I am writing a review for a book. I found that this book is little outdated, however, the reader can use this book to receive a sound background to explore the origins of the theory of cognitive dissonance. I am spending much of my time in academia exploring the cognitive dissonance phenomenon. So based on my experience, I would advise to purchase/download new studies that extended the theory of cognitive dissonance alongside with this book.
March 19, 2021
Very interesting topic! Loved to learn more about it
January 7, 2021
Important insights but painfully dull writing.
June 9, 2024
This needs to be made a compulsory once-in-a-lifetime read. Globally. Fascinating and intellectually stimulating.
April 3, 2021
(The English review is placed beneath the Russian one)
Эта книга пригодится тем, кто изучает историю психологии, а не тем, кого интересует практическая психология или если точнее, социальная психология. А это значит, что лучше прочитать академический учебник по социальной психологии и не тратить время на чтение этой книги.
В чём главная проблема этой книги? Во-первых, она была издана очень давно и во-вторых, она мало что предлагает читателю помимо того о чём пишут в учебниках по социальной психологии когда касаются темы когнитивного диссонанса. Да, вся эта книга посвящена одной теме – когнитивный диссонанс – в то время как обычно ей уделяют всего одну главу или несколько страниц в книгах по социальной психологии.
И вот после того как я прочитал эту книгу, я могу утверждать, что короткое объяснение сути когнитивного диссонанса на несколько страниц никак отрицательно не сказывается на понимании этой темы. Возможно, для будущего специалиста по социальной психологии эта книга является обязательной для изучения, но вот для простого читателя, который интересуется психологией не в качестве профессии, эту книгу можно спокойно игнорировать.
Также нужно сказать, что книга сохраняет академический стиль. А это значит что к тексту, который мало предлагает читателю чего-то нового, добавляется сухой и довольно скучный профессорский слог.
И третий момент. В книге главы подразделяются на теорию и практику, т.е. сначала описывается теория, а после говорится об экспериментах, которые должны стать подтверждением этой самой теории. Может показаться, что описание реально проведённых экспериментов должно добавить книге живости, но на деле же все эксперименты написаны всё тем же сухим и скучным слогом. Что лишь увеличивает и без того нерадостную картину чтения этой книги. Другими словами, книгу можно было спокойно сократить в два, а возможно даже в три раза. Спасло бы тогда это книгу? В принципе, возможно, ибо в книге всё же проскальзывали интересные моменты. Тем не менее, если говорит в целом о данной работе и о том, стоит ли её читать не специалисту по социальной психологии, то мой ответ будет отрицательным. Ибо книга почти ничего нового не предлагает, но в тоже время написана она очень скучно. В общем, я не вижу смысла её читать. И место этой книги на полке «История психологии».
This book will be useful to those who study the history of psychology but not to those who are interested in practical psychology, or more specifically, social psychology, which means that it is better to read an academic textbook on social psychology and not waste time reading this book.
What is the main problem with this book? First, it was published a long time ago, and second, it offers the reader little beyond what social psychology textbooks write about when they refer to cognitive dissonance. Yes, this entire book is devoted to one topic--cognitive dissonance--whereas it is usually only one chapter or a few pages in social psychology books.
And so, after reading this book, I can assert that a short explanation of cognitive dissonance in a few pages does not have any negative effect on one's understanding of the subject. Perhaps for the future specialist in social psychology, this book is a must-read, but for the ordinary reader who is interested in psychology not as a profession this book can be safely ignored.
It must also be said that the book retains an academic style. This means that to the text that offers the reader little of anything new is added a dry and rather boring professor's style.
And the third point. The book splits the chapters between theory and practice, i.e., first, the theory is described, and then the experiments that are supposed to be the proof of this very theory are described. It may seem that the description of real experiments should make the book more vivid, but in reality, all the experiments are written in the same dry and boring way. This only makes the reading of this book more unpleasant than it already is. In other words, the book could easily have been reduced by half, perhaps even three times. Would it have saved the book? Maybe, because the book still had some interesting moments. Nevertheless, if we talk in general about this work and whether it is worth reading for a non-specialist in social psychology, my answer would be negative. Because the book offers almost nothing new, but at the same time it is written in a dry and boring way. All in all, I see no point in reading it. And the place of this book on the shelf "History of Psychology".
Эта книга пригодится тем, кто изучает историю психологии, а не тем, кого интересует практическая психология или если точнее, социальная психология. А это значит, что лучше прочитать академический учебник по социальной психологии и не тратить время на чтение этой книги.
В чём главная проблема этой книги? Во-первых, она была издана очень давно и во-вторых, она мало что предлагает читателю помимо того о чём пишут в учебниках по социальной психологии когда касаются темы когнитивного диссонанса. Да, вся эта книга посвящена одной теме – когнитивный диссонанс – в то время как обычно ей уделяют всего одну главу или несколько страниц в книгах по социальной психологии.
И вот после того как я прочитал эту книгу, я могу утверждать, что короткое объяснение сути когнитивного диссонанса на несколько страниц никак отрицательно не сказывается на понимании этой темы. Возможно, для будущего специалиста по социальной психологии эта книга является обязательной для изучения, но вот для простого читателя, который интересуется психологией не в качестве профессии, эту книгу можно спокойно игнорировать.
Также нужно сказать, что книга сохраняет академический стиль. А это значит что к тексту, который мало предлагает читателю чего-то нового, добавляется сухой и довольно скучный профессорский слог.
И третий момент. В книге главы подразделяются на теорию и практику, т.е. сначала описывается теория, а после говорится об экспериментах, которые должны стать подтверждением этой самой теории. Может показаться, что описание реально проведённых экспериментов должно добавить книге живости, но на деле же все эксперименты написаны всё тем же сухим и скучным слогом. Что лишь увеличивает и без того нерадостную картину чтения этой книги. Другими словами, книгу можно было спокойно сократить в два, а возможно даже в три раза. Спасло бы тогда это книгу? В принципе, возможно, ибо в книге всё же проскальзывали интересные моменты. Тем не менее, если говорит в целом о данной работе и о том, стоит ли её читать не специалисту по социальной психологии, то мой ответ будет отрицательным. Ибо книга почти ничего нового не предлагает, но в тоже время написана она очень скучно. В общем, я не вижу смысла её читать. И место этой книги на полке «История психологии».
This book will be useful to those who study the history of psychology but not to those who are interested in practical psychology, or more specifically, social psychology, which means that it is better to read an academic textbook on social psychology and not waste time reading this book.
What is the main problem with this book? First, it was published a long time ago, and second, it offers the reader little beyond what social psychology textbooks write about when they refer to cognitive dissonance. Yes, this entire book is devoted to one topic--cognitive dissonance--whereas it is usually only one chapter or a few pages in social psychology books.
And so, after reading this book, I can assert that a short explanation of cognitive dissonance in a few pages does not have any negative effect on one's understanding of the subject. Perhaps for the future specialist in social psychology, this book is a must-read, but for the ordinary reader who is interested in psychology not as a profession this book can be safely ignored.
It must also be said that the book retains an academic style. This means that to the text that offers the reader little of anything new is added a dry and rather boring professor's style.
And the third point. The book splits the chapters between theory and practice, i.e., first, the theory is described, and then the experiments that are supposed to be the proof of this very theory are described. It may seem that the description of real experiments should make the book more vivid, but in reality, all the experiments are written in the same dry and boring way. This only makes the reading of this book more unpleasant than it already is. In other words, the book could easily have been reduced by half, perhaps even three times. Would it have saved the book? Maybe, because the book still had some interesting moments. Nevertheless, if we talk in general about this work and whether it is worth reading for a non-specialist in social psychology, my answer would be negative. Because the book offers almost nothing new, but at the same time it is written in a dry and boring way. All in all, I see no point in reading it. And the place of this book on the shelf "History of Psychology".
April 14, 2025
The Orwell of social psychology.
Festinger’s earnest voice, coupled with his precise and unambiguous use of language, makes reading his work thoroughly enjoyable. In the 1950s, Festinger predicted the emergence of networks like Fox News and MSNBC—platforms that thrive precisely because people dislike hearing facts that contradict their worldview. His infiltration of the Michigan-based UFO doomsday cult The Seekers, whose prophecy ultimately failed, remains one of the most badass psychological studies of the 20th century.
Festinger outlined four key strategies people use to rationalize and reduce the psychological discomfort caused by dissonance: Adding a justification belief to create consonance, minimizing the threat of a dissonant belief, introducing a new framework to weaken the contradiction, creating a trade-off belief (consonance through substitution).
One particularly compelling example Festinger provides involves the Ifaluk people of the Federated States of Micronesia. They hold a strong cultural belief that humans are inherently good, yet regularly observe aggressive behavior in children on the atoll. To reconcile these conflicting cognitions—“people are good” and “children act badly”—they introduce a third belief: malevolent spirits possess the children and cause the misbehavior (Festinger, 1968, p. 22). We do similar things every day to avoid dissonance. For instance, someone who buys a car they can’t afford might immediately downplay the purchase and claim it was a mistake. This “softens the blow” of the dissonance they’ll experience when the first bill, insurance payment, and gas costs hit.
Why do we have such an innate drive to align our actions with our beliefs? Likely because nature rewards coherence. Those who act decisively and consistently expend less mental effort and navigate social environments more effectively. Stable beliefs allow individuals to make faster decisions without constantly reassessing every choice—preserving cognitive resources for tasks critical to survival (Vugt & Kameda, 2010). Consistent behavior also signals reliability. Individuals whose actions align with group norms are more likely to be trusted, and therefore gain better access to resources, support, and mating opportunities. In ancestral environments, trustworthiness and group cohesion weren’t just valued—they were essential for survival.
References:
Festinger, L. (1968). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Van Vugt, M., & Kameda, T. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on group dynamics. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 297–322). Psychology Press.
Festinger’s earnest voice, coupled with his precise and unambiguous use of language, makes reading his work thoroughly enjoyable. In the 1950s, Festinger predicted the emergence of networks like Fox News and MSNBC—platforms that thrive precisely because people dislike hearing facts that contradict their worldview. His infiltration of the Michigan-based UFO doomsday cult The Seekers, whose prophecy ultimately failed, remains one of the most badass psychological studies of the 20th century.
Festinger outlined four key strategies people use to rationalize and reduce the psychological discomfort caused by dissonance: Adding a justification belief to create consonance, minimizing the threat of a dissonant belief, introducing a new framework to weaken the contradiction, creating a trade-off belief (consonance through substitution).
One particularly compelling example Festinger provides involves the Ifaluk people of the Federated States of Micronesia. They hold a strong cultural belief that humans are inherently good, yet regularly observe aggressive behavior in children on the atoll. To reconcile these conflicting cognitions—“people are good” and “children act badly”—they introduce a third belief: malevolent spirits possess the children and cause the misbehavior (Festinger, 1968, p. 22). We do similar things every day to avoid dissonance. For instance, someone who buys a car they can’t afford might immediately downplay the purchase and claim it was a mistake. This “softens the blow” of the dissonance they’ll experience when the first bill, insurance payment, and gas costs hit.
Why do we have such an innate drive to align our actions with our beliefs? Likely because nature rewards coherence. Those who act decisively and consistently expend less mental effort and navigate social environments more effectively. Stable beliefs allow individuals to make faster decisions without constantly reassessing every choice—preserving cognitive resources for tasks critical to survival (Vugt & Kameda, 2010). Consistent behavior also signals reliability. Individuals whose actions align with group norms are more likely to be trusted, and therefore gain better access to resources, support, and mating opportunities. In ancestral environments, trustworthiness and group cohesion weren’t just valued—they were essential for survival.
References:
Festinger, L. (1968). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
Van Vugt, M., & Kameda, T. (2010). Evolutionary perspectives on group dynamics. In J. M. Levine (Ed.), Group processes (pp. 297–322). Psychology Press.
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
July 29, 2019
El libro puede resumirse así: buscamos una coherencia dentro de nuestro sistema de creencias y entre nuestro sistema de creencias y nuestras acciones. Cuando algunos de estos elementos entran en conflicto, estamos en lo que el autor define como una disonancia cognitiva.
Cuanto más grande sea conflicto más nos compele a actuar. Es decir no podemos soportar durante mucho tiempo creer algo y decir o hacer algo diferente, en tal caso tenemos dos opciones o cambiar nuestra conducta o cambiar nuestras creencias y eso suele ocurrir con una serie de racionalizaciones posteriores.
Los dos últimos casos que presenta son quizás los más interesantes porque hablando un comportamiento grupal poco intuitivo.
El primero trata de cómo se propagaron rumores de futuros desastres en una zona alrededor del epicentro de un terremoto. Los rumores consistían en que pronto habría un desastre de mayor magnitud pero solo ocurrieron en zonas poco afectadas por el terremoto.¿ Porqué? la gente sentía miedo, sin embargo, nada en su entorno parecía explicar este miedo. Eso es incoherente.
Por lo tanto, buscaron una razón por la que sentir miedo y esa fue la profecía. El otro caso es de las sectas milenaristas ¿qué ocurre cuando ponen una fecha para el fin del mundo y este no ocurre?
Esto genera una gran disonancia entre la creencia y la realidad. Los que más perdían los que habían vendido su casa o dejado su trabajo eran más reacios a aceptar la realidad. Los que estaban en grupo que se reforzaban los unos a los otros con alguna explicación también. Lo más contraintuitivo es que después de este hecho los adeptos se dedican a hacer más proselitismo que nunca.
Calmaban sus dudas, su conflicto, intentando crear una realidad social coherente con sus creencias.
En mi opinión, la mayoría del libro se dedica a crear un marco teórico para definir la disonancia cognitiva, pero la mayoría de lo que dice es de sentido común y aporta poco menos que la página de Wikipedia, por lo tanto no creo que su lectura aporte mucho.
Cuanto más grande sea conflicto más nos compele a actuar. Es decir no podemos soportar durante mucho tiempo creer algo y decir o hacer algo diferente, en tal caso tenemos dos opciones o cambiar nuestra conducta o cambiar nuestras creencias y eso suele ocurrir con una serie de racionalizaciones posteriores.
Los dos últimos casos que presenta son quizás los más interesantes porque hablando un comportamiento grupal poco intuitivo.
El primero trata de cómo se propagaron rumores de futuros desastres en una zona alrededor del epicentro de un terremoto. Los rumores consistían en que pronto habría un desastre de mayor magnitud pero solo ocurrieron en zonas poco afectadas por el terremoto.¿ Porqué? la gente sentía miedo, sin embargo, nada en su entorno parecía explicar este miedo. Eso es incoherente.
Por lo tanto, buscaron una razón por la que sentir miedo y esa fue la profecía. El otro caso es de las sectas milenaristas ¿qué ocurre cuando ponen una fecha para el fin del mundo y este no ocurre?
Esto genera una gran disonancia entre la creencia y la realidad. Los que más perdían los que habían vendido su casa o dejado su trabajo eran más reacios a aceptar la realidad. Los que estaban en grupo que se reforzaban los unos a los otros con alguna explicación también. Lo más contraintuitivo es que después de este hecho los adeptos se dedican a hacer más proselitismo que nunca.
Calmaban sus dudas, su conflicto, intentando crear una realidad social coherente con sus creencias.
En mi opinión, la mayoría del libro se dedica a crear un marco teórico para definir la disonancia cognitiva, pero la mayoría de lo que dice es de sentido común y aporta poco menos que la página de Wikipedia, por lo tanto no creo que su lectura aporte mucho.
April 19, 2024
Didn't read the whole book.
The theory behind this psycology is interesting and I find it useful in many settings.
The theory is a psychological concept describing the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. This discomfort leads individuals to seek consistency in their cognitions (consistencies as Leon puts it early in the book), which can result in changing attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the dissonance.
My understanding of dissonance can somehow be translated to harmony. And the theory can be put as: "beliefs, values or attitudes are trying to alter my harmony, and now the mind is trying to correct it by either starting to believe in these new beliefs, adhere to the changes or moving towards the new attitudes. And then the mind will perhaps form a new harmony being based on that".
An example from a real-world take could be around "Concerns around about AI in context of Personal Job Security "
Situation: Software developers might be creating tools and systems that could potentially automate tasks including their own jobs.
Dissonance: The recognition that their work contributes to job automation, which could reduce employment opportunities for themselves.
Resolution/New hamony: Developers might justify their work by focusing on the increased productivity AI brings, or by shifting their focus to areas of AI that create new job opportunities.
At the moment of writing I see the theory being played out basically everywhere :)
The theory behind this psycology is interesting and I find it useful in many settings.
The theory is a psychological concept describing the mental discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs, values, or attitudes. This discomfort leads individuals to seek consistency in their cognitions (consistencies as Leon puts it early in the book), which can result in changing attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors to reduce the dissonance.
My understanding of dissonance can somehow be translated to harmony. And the theory can be put as: "beliefs, values or attitudes are trying to alter my harmony, and now the mind is trying to correct it by either starting to believe in these new beliefs, adhere to the changes or moving towards the new attitudes. And then the mind will perhaps form a new harmony being based on that".
An example from a real-world take could be around "Concerns around about AI in context of Personal Job Security "
Situation: Software developers might be creating tools and systems that could potentially automate tasks including their own jobs.
Dissonance: The recognition that their work contributes to job automation, which could reduce employment opportunities for themselves.
Resolution/New hamony: Developers might justify their work by focusing on the increased productivity AI brings, or by shifting their focus to areas of AI that create new job opportunities.
At the moment of writing I see the theory being played out basically everywhere :)
Read
November 18, 2024It’s a classic. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance lays out Leon Festinger’s theory about how and why we change our attitudes. More than 25 of the books that I’ve reviewed contain a direct reference to “cognitive dissonance.” It underlies theories of change at personal, organizational, and societal levels. The fundamental core is simply that individuals strive for consistency in themselves. They want their behaviors to match their values and their values to match their words. From this simple premise, research has tried to explain the conditions under which we’ll change to reduce discrepancies.
Read more
Read more
February 4, 2020
This book was revolutionary when it was first published, but it has become hard to obtain recently. I read it as part of my university psychology course on cognition years ago. I found the concepts useful for research a few years ago, and so I used an online version until I finally located this reprint and was able to buy the book. For some reason, reading a physical book is easier for me to understand than reading it online. The main gyst of this book is that when there is a dissonance between one`s beliefs and one`s actions, one`s actions can alter one`s beliefs - in contradiction to what is generally believed.
August 24, 2018
The concept itself is very interesting (and that's why I managed to finish the book) but it was one of the most boring books I read since school times. The examples were really hard to comprehend, in many cases almost impossible unless you make numerous notes. I do understand it's an academics read, but I'm reading a lot of books of this kind and in most cases authors make it possible to enjoy the process. The theory itself is hard to overestimate though.
August 9, 2021
It’s always a treat to go back and read the original source for a theory. The chapters that presented the nuances of the theory were 5 stars. The chapters with the research that supported the theory weren’t as impressive. Festinger’s interpretations of others’ research wasn’t very clear. It would be fantastic if someone could update the research chapters with newer research that supports the theory.
May 7, 2025
Written in 1957, this is crucial for understanding the evolving sphere of race relations in the US. Stokely Carmichael likely read this…it’s a far reaching theory in a field characterized by disjointed findings. Better to read sitting in a bit of dissonance yourself if you dare.
May 26, 2020
Una teoría que aporta mucho al entendimiento de, por ejemplo, la situación de pandemia Covid en la que vivimos este 2020.
Es muy teórico, pero aplicable. Una lectura esencial dentro del área.
:D
Es muy teórico, pero aplicable. Una lectura esencial dentro del área.
:D
June 27, 2023
The book provides significant insights around the topic and has beautiful ways of conveying critical perspectives into the readers mind! Loved it and enjoyed reading!
October 21, 2025
Rather dry and clinical in its writing style, but the utility and applicability of the concepts overrides that.
March 5, 2009
Overall, it's a nice read. Psychology research interests me of late, although two flaws I find are the general attribution of almost all behavior to the reduction of dissonance as well as the lack of control and presence of deception in the experimental work.
July 15, 2009
A fantastically insightful book written in prose that ranks well above turgid but nowhere near breezy. I would've given it 5 stars but because of its time (trying to make social psych respectable) it is written in an overly scientific fashion (damn behaviorists ruin everything).
April 21, 2009
Well, not fiction, but I found in enormously insightful. No particular need to re-read it, but it explains a lot about why people do such bizarre things in interactin with their beliefs.
September 12, 2011
It's sociology, what am I to do?
Displaying 1 - 25 of 25 reviews