Jump to content

Talk:Cognitive dissonance: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m A small wording problem: added signature
Line 42: Line 42:
In the Examples section, I was confused by this formulation: "Franklin (1996: p. 80) '''won over''' a political opponent by asking him a favor [...]"
In the Examples section, I was confused by this formulation: "Franklin (1996: p. 80) '''won over''' a political opponent by asking him a favor [...]"


I first interpreted "won over" as if Franklin ''defeated'' an opponent, and wondered what he won over him ''in''. This lead to some cognitive dissonance of my own. I cannot think of a better formulation right now, but I hope someone else can. Also I don't see a reason to have the "(1996: p. 80)", the information is contained in the reference after the quote and disrupts the flow of the text.
I first interpreted "won over" as if Franklin ''defeated'' an opponent, and wondered what he won over him ''in''. This lead to some cognitive dissonance of my own. I cannot think of a better formulation right now, but I hope someone else can. Also I don't see a reason to have the "(1996: p. 80)", the information is contained in the reference after the quote and disrupts the flow of the text. [[User:Apocryphite|Apocryphite]] ([[User talk:Apocryphite|talk]]) 09:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 09:49, 8 February 2011

WikiProject iconPsychology B‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FAOL

agreed

I agree that Linux/MS products isn't a good example and would not necessarily appear in a text book.

Information for future updates

I am just about finished reading Festinger's "A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance" (Stanford, 1962 edition) and I don't feel like this page accurately explains the original theory. Some points that should be mentioned in a future update of the article:

1) Cognitions are "dissonant" if the obverse of one follows from other. Thus, neglecting to bring an umbrella is dissonant with the knowledge that it is likely to rain.

2) The magnitude of dissonance is related to the importance of the dissonant elements and the proportion of dissonant elements to cognitive elements.

3) The maximum possible amount of dissonance is equal to the resistance to change of the less resistant element. In other words, dissonance will increase until its magnitude surpasses the resistance of the least resistant dissonant cognition, at which point that cognition will change and dissonance will be reduced below the limit. For example, it is likely that racist beliefs are more resistant to change than one's opinion of a politician's performance, and so a racist who has a high amount of dissonance concerning a very popular Black politician is more likely to decide that the politician is not actually good at his job, rather than deciding that Black people actually make good politicians.

4) Dissonance can be reduced by either eliminating or changing dissonant cognitions, or by adding new consonant cognitions. So, someone who feels dissonance about buying a new car can reduce that dissonance by concluding that other types of cars are in fact inferior, or that the chosen type of car actually has many features that make it superior.

5) It is expected that people who feel dissonance will seek out information that will reduce their dissonance and avoid information that will increase it. In situations of "buyers' remorse," people will do this after the purchase has been made. So, the hypotheical car buyer should avoid information praising the non-chosen types of cars, and seek information that lauds the type that was chosen. When people involuntarily encounter information that would increase dissonance, they will find ways to discount it, such as ignoring it, misinterpreting it, or denying it.

I believe these points outline the core of Festinger's original dissonance theory. While some of this information is currently presented in the article, the information is not complete or cohesive. I recommend that the article have one section concerning the "original" theory of dissonance that includes the material above. Further sections could then explicate current trends in dissonance theory, alternatives to dissonance theory, etc. While I will add some of the above information, I will leave major revision to others who are more knowledgeable about those latter topics (current trends and alternatives) than I. 4 May 2006 (UTC)NB

Dissonance in the brain

I've included a "cognitive dissonance in the brain" section, which might be interesting to some readers. Additions/comments are welcome. --Efb18 5:58, 16 Dec 2009

References section

I've corrected a few minor errors in the references section, and included links to urls for a number of peer-reviewed articles. I've also applied APA style where necessary. Corrections are welcome. --Efb18 3:43, 10 Jan 2010

A small wording problem

In the Examples section, I was confused by this formulation: "Franklin (1996: p. 80) won over a political opponent by asking him a favor [...]"

I first interpreted "won over" as if Franklin defeated an opponent, and wondered what he won over him in. This lead to some cognitive dissonance of my own. I cannot think of a better formulation right now, but I hope someone else can. Also I don't see a reason to have the "(1996: p. 80)", the information is contained in the reference after the quote and disrupts the flow of the text. Apocryphite (talk) 09:49, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]