Page 202 - The Social Animal

184 The Social Animal

fear? This explanation is bolstered by Durganand Sinha’s study of
2
rumors. Sinha investigated the rumors being spread in an Indian
village following a disaster of similar magnitude. The major differ-
ence between the situation in Prasad’s study and the one in Sinha’s
study was that the people being investigated by Sinha had actually
suffered the destruction and witnessed the damage. They were
scared, but they had good reasons to be frightened; they had no need
to seek additional justification for their fears. Thus, their rumors
contained no prediction of impending disaster and no serious exag-
geration. Indeed, if anything, the rumors were comforting. For ex-
ample, one rumor predicted (falsely) that the water supply would be
restored in a very short time.
Leon Festinger organized this array of findings and used them
as the basis for a powerful theory of human motivation that he called
the theory of cognitive dissonance. It is a remarkably simple theory
3
but, as we shall see, the range of its application is enormous. Basi-
cally, cognitive dissonance is a state of tension that occurs whenever
an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes,
beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent. Stated differ-
ently, two cognitions are dissonant if, when considered alone, the op-
posite of one follows from the other. Because the occurrence of
cognitive dissonance is unpleasant, people are motivated to reduce it;
this is roughly analogous to the processes involved in the induction
and reduction of such drives as hunger or thirst—except that, here,
the driving force arises from cognitive discomfort rather than phys-
iological needs.To hold two ideas that contradict each other is to flirt
with absurdity, and—as Albert Camus, the existentialist philosopher,
has observed—humans are creatures who spend their lives trying to
convince themselves that their existence is not absurd.
How do we convince ourselves that our lives are not absurd; that
is, how do we reduce cognitive dissonance? By changing one or both
cognitions in such a way as to render them more compatible (more
consonant) with each other or by adding more cognitions that help
bridge the gap between the original cognitions.*

*In the preceding chapter, we learned that beliefs and attitudes are not always
good predictors of a person’s behavior—that is to say, behavior is not always consis-
tent with relevant beliefs and attitudes. Here we are making the point that most peo-
ple feel that their beliefs and attitudes should be consistent with their behavior and,
therefore, are motivated to justify their behavior when it is inconsistent with a pre-
existing attitude.