FOCUS QUESTIONS
3
I
t
was
shocking
news
: 39
people
were
found
dead
at
a
luxury
estate
in
r
ancho
s
anta
f
e
, c
alifornia
,
participants
in
a
mass
suicide
. All were
members of an obscure cult called Heaven’s Gate. Each body was laid out
neatly, feet clad in brand-new black Nikes, face covered with a purple shroud.
The cult members died willingly and peacefully, leaving behind videotapes de-
scribing their reasons for suicide: They believed that the Hale-Bopp Comet, a
recently discovered comet streaking across the night skies, was their ticket to
a new life in paradise. They were convinced that in Hale-Bopp’s wake was a
gigantic spaceship whose mission was to carry them off to a new incarnation.
To be picked up by the spaceship, they first needed to rid themselves of their
current “containers.” That is, they needed to leave their own bodies by end-
ing their lives. Alas, no spaceship ever came.
Several weeks before the mass suicide, some members of the cult pur-
chased an expensive, high-powered telescope. They wanted to get a clearer
view of the comet and the spaceship that they believed was traveling behind
it. A few days later, they returned the telescope and politely asked for their
money back. When the store manager asked them if they had problems with
the scope, they replied, “Well, gosh, we found the comet, but we can’t find
anything following it” (Ferris, 1997). Although the store manager tried to
convince them that there was nothing wrong with the telescope and that
nothing was following the comet, they remained unconvinced. Given their
premise, their logic was impeccable: We know an alien spaceship is following
behind the Hale-Bopp Comet. If an expensive telescope has failed to reveal
that spaceship, then there is something wrong with the telescope.
Their thinking might strike you as strange, irrational, or stupid, but, gen-
erally speaking, the members of the Heaven’s Gate cult were none of those
things. Neighbors who knew them considered them pleasant, smart, and rea-
sonable. What is the process by which intelligent, sane people can succumb
to such fantastic thinking and self-destructive behavior? We will attempt to
explain their actions at the end of this chapter. For now, we will simply state
that their behavior is not unfathomable. It is simply an extreme example of a
normal human tendency: the need to justify our actions and commitments.
The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance
During the past half-century, social psychologists have discovered that one
of the most powerful determinants of human behavior stems from our need
to preserve a stable, positive self-image (Aronson, 1969, 1998). Most people
believe they are above average—more ethical and competent, better drivers,
better leaders, better judges of character, and more attractive than the major-
ity (Fine, 2008; Gilovich, 1991). But if most of us see ourselves as reasonable,
moral, and smart, what happens when we are confronted with information
implying that we have behaved in ways that are unreasonable, immoral, or
stupid? That is the subject of this chapter.
■
What is the theory of cognitive
dissonance, and how do people
avoid dissonance to maintain a
stable, positive self-image?
■
How is the justification of
effort a product of cognitive
dissonance, and what are
some practical applications for
reducing dissonance?
■
How can people avoid the traps
of self-justification and other
dissonance-reducing behavior?
M06_ARON6625_08_SE_C06.indd 3
07/03/12 3:30 AM
4
CHApTer 6
The Need to Justify Our Actions
Maintaining a positive Self-Image
The feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one’s
self-concept is called cognitive dissonance. Leon Festinger (1957) was the first to in-
vestigate the precise workings of this phenomenon and elaborated his findings in what
is arguably social psychology’s most important and most provocative theory.
Cognitive dissonance always produces discomfort, and in response we try to reduce
it. The process is similar to the effects of hunger and thirst: Discomfort motivates us
to eat or drink. But unlike satisfying hunger or thirst by eating or drinking, the path
to reducing dissonance is not always simple or obvious. In fact, it can lead to fascinat-
ing changes in the way we think about the world and the way we behave. How can we
reduce dissonance? There are three basic ways (see Figure 6.1):
• By changing our behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition.
• By attempting to justify our behavior through changing one of the dissonant
cognitions.
• By attempting to justify our behavior by adding new cognitions.
To illustrate each of these, let’s look at something that millions of people do several
times a day: smoke cigarettes. If you are a smoker, you are likely to experience dis-
sonance because you know that this behavior significantly increases the risks of lung
cancer, emphysema, and earlier death. How can you reduce this dissonance? The most
direct way is to change your behavior and give up smoking. Your behavior would then
be consistent with your knowledge of the link between smoking and cancer. Although
many people have succeeded in quitting, it’s not easy; many have tried and failed. What
do these people do? It would be wrong to assume that they simply swallow hard, light
up, and prepare to die. They don’t. Researchers studied the behavior and attitudes of
heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic but then relapsed into heavy
smoking again. What do you suppose the researchers discovered? Heavy smokers who
Cognitive Dissonance
A drive or feeling of discomfort,
originally defined as being caused
by holding two or more inconsis-
tent cognitions and subsequently
defined as being caused by per-
forming an action that is discrep-
ant from one’s customary, typically
positive self-conception.
Figure 6.1
How We reduce Cognitive Dissonance
There are three basic ways of reducing dissonance: change your behavior, change your cogni-
tion, or add a new cognition.
M06_ARON6625_08_SE_C06.indd 4
07/03/12 3:30 AM